Note to Readers:

Please Note: The editor of White Refugee blog is a member of the Ecology of Peace culture.

Summary of Ecology of Peace Radical Honoursty Factual Reality Problem Solving: Poverty, slavery, unemployment, food shortages, food inflation, cost of living increases, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, pollution, peak oil, peak water, peak food, peak population, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, peak resources, racial, religious, class, gender resource war conflict, militarized police, psycho-social and cultural conformity pressures on free speech, etc; inter-cultural conflict; legal, political and corporate corruption, etc; are some of the socio-cultural and psycho-political consequences of overpopulation & consumption collision with declining resources.

Ecology of Peace RH 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 & sign their responsible freedom oaths; to implement Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural Law as international law; to require all citizens of all races, religions and nations to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are updated at EoP MILED Clerk.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

2012-04-19 (TV2): Breivik Trial: Day 04: Breivik Testimony: Masonry, Radicalization & Planning of Attacks

2012-04-19 (TV2): Breivik Trial: Day 04: Breivik Testimony: Masonry, Radicalization & Planning of Attacks

Oslo District Court: #: 11-188627 MED-05 | 19 April 2012 | Breivik Report/TV2.NO

Breivik: No, I remember that we were talking to various people, about what they saw as injustices in society. And I've just been very skeptical of Muslim immigration from when I was 15 years. So in some settings it would have been considered improper, Thus, we speak not so very serious about it, but whether to attack the Muslims in Norway and Muslim groups. And, one can say that, it is important to note is that the militant nationalists in Europe are split in two when it comes to goals. Half think that you should attack the Muslims and minorities. The other half believes that we should attack the elites, those responsible and make them pay. So it is important to emphasize that there are two groups that mean something quite different among militant nationalists. For example, Laser man and NSU supported attacks on minorities in order to harm multiculturalism like that. I disagree with it. I think it isn't the Muslims' fault that they have been invited here, it's completely different people's fault.

Holden: OK. So ...

Breivik: But at one point, it was perhaps well before it happened Benjamin Hermansen in Oslo, I was of the opinion, I actually shared my opinion with the others, that it was most appropriate to attack the Muslims in Norway. But then I changed opinion, after what happened to Benjamin Hermansen. After that I changed the perception, and I thought it would be detrimental to do it the other way. It would be more appropriate to go right after the ones responsible for it. So I changed my view at that time.


Breivik: You know, to do something like that happened at Utøya, goes against human nature. And to make yourself able to implement something like that, then you have to adapt yourself mentally very long, to at all have a chance to carry it out. You can train yourself to hammer out your emotions and build a contempt of death, even then it is very difficult to conduct a such action, which is contrary to human nature in many ways. It is easy to push a button and trigger a bomb. It is very, very difficult to implement something as barbaric as a firearm based operation. And it is certainly not a politically motivated violent activists want, but when their tools are deprived of you, or EU authorities and others, so we are left with that option. it is not we wanted

Holden: Are you pleased that you managed to implement it?

Breivik: I think it's terrible that you have to make such actions to get through a message. And if you want to see an overview of who is truly responsible, it is primarily the Norwegian press and European press that refuses us to express ourselves. In addition, the Labor itself, which has contributed to the situation we are in today in Norway and Europe.


Breivik: No, that is, no escaping the violence and are, therefore, is and should be the last option. And as I see it, I have tried, and many others in Europe and Norway, tried to make themselves heard. But Due to the Norwegian press, foreign press, so we are marginalized and censored, kept out of democracy. And then this is the result.


Breivik: You know, 100 percent of all news agencies in Norway supports multiculturalism. There is not a journalist in Norway that is opponent of multiculturalism. This means that all these so-called journalists, they are not journalists, they are political activists. For that a journalist actually be able to call himself a journalist, so one he be objective. This means that he can not support the flag multiculturalism, or as mass immigration, but it does them. And therefore, they are political activists.

Oslo Court Record Transcript: 2012-04-19: Norway v. Breivik Trial: Day 04: Breivik Testimony

9:00 Breivik has entered the courtroom.

9:00 Breivik did not give the Knights Templar clenched fist salute.

Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: The Court is in session. I have to ask for the filming to finish. Then continue with the prosecutor's examination of the defendant. Be so good prosecutor.

Prosecutor Svein Holden: Thank you, Judge. Breivik, you and I will talk a little together. What I thought today was that we should discuss the situation in 2006, talk about, well, first a little about the Masonic Lodge, and I thought we should talk about your financial situation at that time. After we're done with that, we go over to the period in which you moved back home to your mother, that summer. And talk first a little about computer games, I thought. And then we'll take us some more about the compendium, you should be allowed to tell a little about how it is structured so on. And after that I had planned to discuss the preparation phase and target selection, before we go over to 22 July. Do you think it sounds fine?

Behring Anders Breivik: Well, then, okay.

Holden: I note that you brought some papers. Is there something special or something you want to say?

Breivik: There are two things that I want to go through today. During the day, at least.

Holden: Yes, what is that?

Breivik: One is the comments of the first psychiatric report made by Asbjornsen and Moe. And the second is radicalization points which is the most important in this, well, it should be the most important for you to examine, instead of uniforms and computer games.

Holden: Okay, I hear what you say, but just when it comes radicalization points, I think we probably will not have as much time to focus on that as you would like. But the advantage is that you can have your defense lawyer ask you questions about it.

Breivik: Yes. But there are only three days left, and when will I get the time to explain what is most important?

Holden: I think probably we can have plenty of time to do it on Monday. And the other issue you brought up is with the first forensic psychiatric statement, we also intend to let you comment, or rather elaborate, for it is, that I agree an important matter.

Breivik: Mm when are you planning to do it?

Holden: Monday.

Breivik: Monday?

Holden: It is certainly our plan. It is possible that we will get a little bit into the first report today, so we can see if it will fit into the schedule. But can we take it as it comes. Sounds good?

Breivik: That sounds fine.

Holden: Great. I will mentioned the Masonic lodge first. We know that you went to the first meeting of the Masonic Lodge in January 2006. Can you tell us about your conditions of membership?

Breivik: No, I just wanted to be a member of the Masonic Order since I was maybe around 17, 18. And the reason for this is that it is a Christian organization that has taken many European traditions, and it's not really the main basis for that I wanted to join.

Holden: Can you describe a bit how you became a member?

Breivik: Freemasonry has 24-year age limit, but the basis that I became a member ... I came in contact with my femmening, Jan Behring. And it was he who was one of my sponsors to the Masonic Order. And yes.

Holden: So that was what was ... it was he who almost got into the lodge?

Breivik: Yes, you must have two sponsors to come in, and he was one of the two.

Holden: Who was the other then?

Breivik: There was another person whom I knew, but he knew very well.

Holden: You said that this was a wish when you were 17, 18 years old ...

Judge Antz: Excuse me, Holden. You have to take the microphone closer.

Holden: Then I'll fix it. You said it was a wish from 17, 18 years old to become a member there. Was it in, did you get any input from others that it was an appropriate membership to have?

Breivik: Yes, I did.

Holden: Yeah, tell me about it.

Breivik: No, it is a militant nationalist who recommended me to join too.

Holden: Yes.

Breivik: And I've written a bit about it in the compendium.

Holden: Yes, can you tell us a bit more about the situation and who it was and what was the reason?

Breivik: What I have described in the compendium is that it was a person who recommended me to join. Beyond that I don't want to comment on it.

Holden: When was this person did it?

Breivik: I do not want to comment on it.

Holden: In the compendium, you have just said that it was in connection with founding meeting in London. Is that correct?

Breivik: You can bet on it. It was during that period.

Holden: It was in that period?

Breivik: Mm.

Holden: What did the militant nationalist say was the reason was that you should become a member?

Breivik: It is the reason that I gave earlier. That it is a Christian organization that has now taken some European traditions that really no other organizations have taken care of, and that alone, in addition there are a lot of interesting texts found in the masonic library, for that reason alone is enough that you should want to join.

Holden: Yeah. And how did you experience your membership? Did it live up to the expectations?

Breivik: I was never really particularly active in the Masonic Order.

Holden: What was the reason for that?

Breivik: The reason was that I had completely different priorities, and I looked at the Masonic Order more as a hobby. So it was not a priority on my part.

Holden: This nationalist that you referred to, he said, according to you that it was useful to take, make use of the library. Did you?

Breivik: I got access to a lot of material from the Masonic Order. But ironically enough, most of which was at the library is also available through the Internet. So I preferred the digital editions. So I actually don't think I was at the library even once.

Holden: Yeah, right. How many meetings were you at?

Breivik: If I had been active, so I suppose I would probably have been in sixth grade. But I was very inactive, so I probably went to no more than a few meetings, under five.

Holden: But yet you have taken a picture of you in, in the uniform of Freemasonry in the compendium, right?

Breivik: Yes, that's right. And that's probably okay that I explain a bit about that?

Holden: It makes sense.

Breivik: Well, as I mentioned earlier, it may be at least one hundred points that I have emphasized in connection with, uh, the marketing phase, to make it harder for European media and the Norwegian media to demonize me. And the image of Freemasonry is part of the hundred points that I focused on making it more difficult for the media to paint me like an inbred, retarded person.

Holden: I see. Okay, that's all I needed to hear about the Masonic Lodge.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: You have told that you discontinued the sale of these fake diplomas during the first half of 2006.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: Can you tell us a little about your financial situation at this time?

Breivik: 2006?

Holden: Yes.

Breivik: Eh.

Holden: The operation of E-Commerce Group is closed.

Breivik: Yes. In 2006 I had just ... eh? 6-700000 in the account, possibly.

Holden: Mhm.

Breivik: Eh ... Also, I had 300,000 in cash, so it was good. My fortune was about one million at the time.

Holden: So 6-700000 in the account, ehm, what kind of account was it?

Breivik: I think probably it was a regular bank account. It was probably between 500,000 and 700,000, so yes, 300,000 in cash, maybe.

Holden: These 300,000 in cash, where did you keep it?

Breivik: I kept it in a safe.

Holden: If I remember correctly, I think it was safety deposit box on the floor from the room in Hoff Road, was it?

Breivik: I had two safes in the room

Holden: It was where you kept the money.

Breivik: Yeah, right.

Holden: And, that is just under a million, it was all your funds, I understand you correctly then?

Breivik: At the time, so, yes, it was so.

Holden: Mhm. How would you describe your cash situation? It might sound a little silly when you have already said that you had 300,000 cash, but I ask anyway.

Breivik: My cash situation was excellent.

Holden: Mhm.

Holden: And, well, you decide to dissolve the E-Commerce Group

Breivik: The termination of E-Commerce Group, and as I told the police earlier, it is unfortunately the case in Norway that it is cheaper to have a controlled bankruptcy than to terminate it any other way, because you do not need to carry auditor costs and accounting costs for two years. So, paradoxically enough, is the most affordable solution in Norway is simply going bankrupt, so I saved at least NOK 100,000.

Holden: Yes, the E-Commerce Group, it was forcibly dissolved?

Breivik: It went bankrupt, yes. But it gives of course a wrong impression, because there were no liquidity problems. It was and simply to save 100,000 NOK, which otherwise would have gone to the auditor costs and accounting costs.

Holden: The 600, 700,000 that you had on the accounts, and you said you thought it was a bank account. Which account do you think it might have been?

Breivik: Yes, well, it's possible it was Nordnet account, a broker account, or it may have been a bank account, I do not remember.

Holden: Yes, Nordnet account, what is that? I'm not that good at trading, you know.

Breivik: It is simply a deposit account.

Holden: Yes ...

Breivik: As is associated with a brokerage.

Holden: What is it that separates it from a regular bank account, then?

Breivik: Well, it is well for Norway, it goes under the Bank Insurance Fund. So, the only difference is probably that of a conventional bank, you get better interest rates and where, among other things. But it is a deposit account affiliated with a brokerage firm, pure and simple.

Holden: Had you invested some money in stocks at the time?

Breivik: I do not remember.

Holden: I sat there and looked at it last night, you know. And then I noticed a little note about a company called SunCom Wireless Holdings.

Breivik: Yes.

Breivik: I suppose it is a name you remember.

Holden: Yeah, right.

Holden: Tell us a little about it.

Breivik: There is a mobile company in the U.S., and I was a shareholder for a year, perhaps. And it was just a position that I came out of maybe did not break even.

Holden: Yes, was it?

Breivik: I do not remember. I seem to remember that it may have been a break even. Maybe a small loss, or even break, I can not remember.

Holden: You have suggested now that you had a fortune in 2006 of around one million.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: Based on what I could see, now it was not like that very complete information from this document. So you had quite a large shareholding in this company.

Breivik: yes. I think I had the record company that I transferred to myself in some way.

Holden: Yes, it agrees with the impression I got. That this was an investment you had in the company, which you can later transferred to another account related to you. Do you have any idea how much money you had in this company?

Breivik: It was good, it could have been the shareholding?

Holden: Yes.

Breivik: I can not recall that there were some other special funds. No, it was primarily the shareholding. I think so.

Holden: How much money did you put on that company, then?

Breivik: How much money I had put on the company?

Holden: Yes, or invested in the company? That about?

Breivik: I had not invested anything in the company. It was a company that received substantial revenues from a company I controlled, Brentwood Solutions Limited. A company that was registered in the Bahamas, and I transferred large sums to the Baltics. And then I used Brentwood Solutions Limited for the purpose of billing (technical failure) to transfer money to the E-Commerce Group. So that way it was set well really just the company a legal identity that I used for white washing money from the Bahamas.

Holden: Yes, I am aware of. So ...

Breivik: So I invested nothing in the company.

Holden: The company I wonder, is this SunCom Wireless Holdings. Your shareholding in this company, how much was it worth?

Breivik: perhaps 500,000.

Holden: Also you said in the place that you had about 600,000 in the account, assuming you ...

Breivik: I said I had 500 to 700,000.

Holden: Yes, that means all the money you had in the account was in this company?

Breivik: I do not remember very well. Maybe.

Holden: Maybe?

Breivik: M.m.

Holden: What happened with that company?

Breivik: So, what I expected to happen, it happened. I bought the shareholding, and speculated that the company would be acquired by Vodaphone or any other company.

Holden: Deutsche Bank.

Breivik: Yes, right there. It was a German company who bought in the end. And it happened, but not the winning that I had calculated.

Holden: Was there any profit, then?

Breivik: Yes, as I said just now, it was just brake even, and possibly a small loss.

Holden: In that period, which ended up in the liquidity squeeze?

Breivik: Not that I can remember. I do not think so.

Holden: The share. Was it at some point suspended from trading?

Breivik: Not that I can remember, but it is possible.

Holden: We'll probably get a little back to this later, Judge. It's something that we have put a little time now, this is to focus on this company. So it is all under the block economics from the investigation later. For the basis of what I could understand of what has been on the internet, you got big problems this company in December 2006.

Breivik: Ok.

Holden: That it was not allowed to be traded?

Breivik: Yes,

Holden: Yes, because the value was so low.

Breivik: M.m.

Holden: So, the share was first opened to trade again in July next year.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: July 2007.

Breivik: Ok.

Holden: And then you sold, so I understand?

Breivik: I sold after the company was acquired by the German company.

Holden: And then I wonder, why have you said that you had, as I have understood you, a large portion of your assets in this company? How did you experience that situation?

Breivik: How I felt about that? I never had liquidity problems. As I said, I had a cash balance of more than 300,000. So there was never a problem. But of course, if one considers what is in the media, so you get the impression that I moved home and rented a room with my mother because the company had gone bankrupt. But in reality I had a fortune of 1 million. The reason that I wanted to conserve my funds was not because I was in liquidity problems, it was because I was not willing to pay 15,000 NOK a month for an apartment in the Frogner. Because then I could spend more time on what I had intended to do, and it was to make the compendium and implement an action.

Holden: As I understood you, you remember this because the company was halted trading stock at a time. What did you do?

Breivik: I remember being very shocked.

Holden: Yes, you had a lot of money there.

Breivik: Absolutely. So I was really worried.

Holden: Yes. Did you think that it was this money disappeared?

Breivik: I have been ... I'm a risk pervert. So I'm used to those situations. I've taken a lot of risks previously and I'm used to those situations. But I remember I was very worried. But it turned out quite good.

Holden: Did you worry that all your money was lost?

Breivik: I was very worried

Holden: Yes, what did you do?

Breivik: If I had ... no, I did not think they were lost.

Holden: What did you think then?

Breivik: I do not remember. It's so long ago. I have held positions in hundreds of companies.

Holden: But Breivik, you say you have a fortune of just over a million and then ... (Interrupted)

Breivik: It's not something I say. It's something I had.

Holden: Yeah. You had a ... I do not object to it, that is. Say you had, a fortune of one million. And for convenience that you had half invested in the company. Exactly what it was, we'll find out later. So you sit there in December and are told that the company is no longer being traded

Breivik: I do not remember that it happened once. Yes, I remember that it was something that happened. It is possible that it was suspended. But I have had hundreds of positions in companies and ...

Holden: Yes, there was something special about this company here?

Breivik: The special was that I expected it would be acquired by a competitor. And it happened. So I ... Thus, it is not something to watch. When you are an investor in a company, and it goes up and down, and selling out when an opportunity presents itself. And you expect it (not audible words).

Holden: Can you describe ... (Interrupted)

Breivik: It is not something that worried me very much, I think.

Holden: If half the wealth is in a company that suddenly are not allowed to trade more, and you are really worried that money might be lost, not reacting much on it?

Breivik: I do not remember how I reacted. I knew I had a position in Sun Com. But that was long ago. And I think if I had been traumatized by it, so I'd probably remember it much better.

Holden: How would you describe your trading? Were you a long term investor, or was it more like short-term trades you were doing?

Breivik: It depends. It was pretty short, I would say. But... my stock trading, shares my speculation is not very important for ...

(Technical failure)

Breivik: I lost 2 million of 4 million. But it has been shown that, according to you, it was the loss of only 360,000. But I believe that I had a greater loss, in fact.

Holden: Day-trading?

Breivik: In certain periods, I did.

Holden: Was that what you loved doing, or was it normal to sit and have positions in a year, perhaps, as you suggested, even in place.

Breivik: In exceptional cases, perhaps.

Holden: Exceptionally. So this investment is ... (Interrupted).

Breivik: It was really only two periods where I was active with the stock speculation. And it was just one of those periods, perhaps.

Holden: Okay. Then I think we can leave that theme. But it is a theme we shall return. You have already told a little about why you move to Hoff Road. Can you repeat something about it?


Breivik: So, at the time that I lived in an apartment in Tidemann's gate, a two-room apartment. And that was the period where I would start to make the compendium, put together the compendium. And before that, so I decided that I should take a sabbatical and do what I really dreamed about my whole life, which was to play World of Warcraft Hardcore for one year. And in that regard, so I wanted to conserve funds so I had enough time to both the one year sabbatical, that I had to finance the entire year of savings, as well as two-three-four years that I was going to make the compendium and implement an action. So the only responsible thing to do was to conserve funds, and when I rented a room with my mother and paid 3500 NOK a month for it.

Holden: mm

Breivik: But I could still have continued to stay at Frogner, and paid 15,000 a month, but then, I would have spent more money.

Holden: Did you have any fresh inflow of capital after you moved home to mother?

Breivik: As I already said, I had a cash balance. So it was no problem.

Holden: But you made some money after you moved home to mother?

Breivik: Well, I closed down the company so I have been living on savings.

Holden: Have you received any form of government assistance schemes.

Breivik: I have never received a dime in my whole life in state social security or benefit plan, because I am in principle against welfare or benefit plans.

Holden: Mm, mm. You said you would treat yourself to a sabbatical.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: What gave rise to the desired?

Breivik: It is well that I actually dreamed about it all my life to at least take a sabbatical and play and do what I dream about. So people are different. Some dreams take a year and sail around the world. Others want to take a year off and gamble. While I am a person who wants to take a year off and play World of Warcraft.

Holden: When was that you had, or acquired the desire

Breivik: It has been there all the time. Thus from 2002 to 2006 I have worked an average of 12 to 14 hours every day. I have worked incredibly hard and much. And I felt that I had, that sacrificed a lot. So I think that I deserved to take a year to do what I wanted. And especially with the impending, eh, so-called suicide attack, so I wanted to be in a situation before it happened that I had no regret about what I had missed out on. I wanted to do something that was a mardyrdom gift. That's why I chose to take a sabbatical.

Holden: So does that mean, when you now characterize it as a martyr gift, you had already decided you to carry out a violent action.

Breivik: Yes, in 2006.

Holden: Mm, okay. World of Warcraft. When did you acquainted with the game?

Breivik: It was one of my employees actually, Russia, I had a customer service department in Russia. Eh, I do not know if I should mention his name, but police have at least that. He played some World of Warcraft and I had played some years earlier, in rare cases, and between 2002 and 2006 I had not indulgent myself to play in any appreciable degree, so I decided, to try World of Warcraft.

Holden: Decided to you immediately that you have a whole year, or were there thoughts of a shorter period first?

Breivik: It was basically so I thought that now I'll play until I actually get tired, eh, and then we'll see, I'll take it as it comes. It was perhaps the first place, that I would play until I got tired.

Holden: Mm. You heard the judge's questions to me the first day. World of Warcraft, it is a violent game?

Breivik: No, I would not call it a violent game. So, I played Modern Warfare, Call of Duty, it can be said is a war simulator, while the War of Warcraft is just a fantasy game that is not violent at all. It's just fantasy. But well, it's a strategy game. To work with many others to overcome challenges, so that's why you do, it's a very social game, where half the time you are connected at one uses in communication with others. So this would be a mistake to look at it as an asocial games. It is perhaps the most social game of all. And it can be compared to Facebook.

Holden: Mm.

Holden: It is a little unfamiliar to the court. You can tell a little about how communication takes place?

Breivik: So, you create a team of players who try to overcome the challenges where you need 25 people. And then one establish a team of maybe 50 people, and so one might meet four times a week from seven o'clock to twelve o'clock, and in the hours that work to solve problems in the game. And it takes very high level of precision and synchronous collaboration.

Holden: How are the players communicate with each other then?

Breivik: One can communicate through normal chat. Or so we use ventrilo communication that works almost like Skype where you have a headset on your head and speak simply to others.

Holden: Okay, so it is in principle 25 that talks to each other or talk to each other simultaneously?

Breivik: That's right there. There is a room that people meet, there is a team leader who gives orders to others, and he has people under him who takes care of specific tasks. Dividing up into different layers. So it depends on very high level of communication.

Holden: Mm. Can you tell us about your time spent on this game during this year?

Breivik: In the years that I played maybe 16 hours per day.

Holden: Oh, it sounded much.

Breivik: Sure, it was a lot.

Holden: So, in reality, nothing, just play?

Breivik: only play in an entire year.

Holden: Gaming and sleeping?

Breivik: Gaming and sleeping.

Holden: What about other things up?

Breivik: It is a year that I wanted to use for that purpose. That is, it's a dream I had. And I want to do.

Holden: What about studies in this period? You outlined the a fairly high number of hours ..

Breivik: There was very little study of this period.

Holden: So this year, this year you studied nothing.

Breivik: No, I did not. But anyway I know that it is important for the prosecution and the media to focus very much on World of Warcraft and games, but it is pure entertainment, it has nothing to do with 22 July. Some people like to play golf, others like to sail and enjoy playing World of Warcraft. It has nothing to do with 22 July.

Holden: Correct.

Breivik: But it is not a world in which you are immersed. It is simply a hobby.

Holden: And as I interpret to mean that you did not spend any time on the compendium in this period.

Breivik: That year I did not, no.

Holden: So from the summer of 2006 until approximately the summer of 2007 when, you had not started at the compendium.

Breivik: I may have started slightly in 2007.

Holden: Yes, how did you get time to do these 16-hour sessions then?

Breivik: No, well, I can not say that I played 16 hours a day 365 days, but I know that I played incredibly much in that period. But I don't have an overview of each and every day. But I may have begun as far as the preparation of the foundation of the compendium In 2007 maybe. I had a point that I worked on with, so it was then, mm, start-up.

Holden: Coming back to just a little bit later. How did people react to you in this year then?

Breivik: They reacted with shock and disbelief. One of the reasons that, uh, it was quite convenient that year, it was that I knew that I would be taking action. And it was quite convenient that I isolated myself in the period to be able to implement what I have done, so I could not have a network that was very close to me. I could not have friends that I was too close simply, but of course, until then I had been a very social, lived a normal life. So friends and family reacted to the shock and dismay that I chose to take that year.

Holden: What about your mother when you lived with.

Breivik: She reacted the same way.

Holden: Did you tell her what you did?

Breivik: What, what I did?

Holden: Yes, you.

Breivik: Yes, I said that I should take time now to do what I wanted to do, and she reacted that way, which is quite normal healthy attitude really, it had been quite unusual if she had said its awesome for you to do so. But I could not then tell her i'm taking a sabbatical because I will blow myself in the air in five years. So of course, I told her that I played very much that I think that I have become addicted to games and stuff. It was my primary cover the entire period, so people reacted with dismay and shock, and thought I had become completely dependent on gaming

Holden: What about the KT network then?

Breivik: What about it?

Holden: Did they know about the Sabbatical?

Breivik: I have talked to police about it and I will not comment on it further than I already did. I do not want to comment on it.

Holden: Do you consider yourself as a renegade knight?

Breivik: Maybe.

Holden: What, what did you think about it?

Breivik: No, I felt it was important to do so to prepare myself mentally to sacrifice their lives.

Holden: communicating it back to them? You or them?

Breivik: To a certain extent, but I had no understanding of it. There is very little understanding of a hobby that is not recognized, just like golf in particular.

Holden: After this year was gone, did you take any more time on World of Warcraft then?

Breivik: Yes, that is, when there was an expansion I spent some time on it.

Holden: What is an expansion?

Breivik: So there is an expansion pack that they brought on two occasions afterwards. There was one instance in 2010, when cataclysm came out in December, and then I spent a few weeks on it. And then I played a bit with the friends I had there, and checked the contents simply. So I've spent some time on it as a hobby since the Sabbatical. But I spent much less time.

Holden: It is the one period we have been printing from ...

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: we see that in the period 23 November 2010 to 4 February 2011.

Breivik: Over a year online.

Holden: No, we only have from this period, that is what we are printing from.

Breivik: mm, 500 hours.

Holden: Uh, yes, at least an average of six hours and 50 minutes per day in this, what's a little over two months, two and a half months.

Breivik: I think probably you should concentrate it to the first part. I think I played a few intense weeks to check the new content package, and thus, in other words, what I did I was concentrated, so it was not spread over a long period.

Holden: Do you remember how you spent New Year's Eve, your last New Year's Eve before by 22 July?

Breivik: I know where you want to go. You want to, of course, to do what you can to ridicule me, but in the stage, I wanted to prepare myself mentally to carry out a suicide attack. And then is not the maintenance of friendship very highly. What i did was simply to do what I want to prepare myself mentally, to be strong enough on that day.

Holden: No, I bet I noticed that ...

Breivik: I know where you want to go with it.

Holden: No, I saw that you played in excess of 17 hours this New Year's Eve.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: It is not, then you have replied.

Breivik: But it is perhaps worth noting that I have been quite social over the last year before the operation. I have attached a lot. Thus, when attached, so I attached hard. And when I did other things, so I did it too (not audible). So I know that you are trying to just focus on things that puts me in a bad light, and I have great sympathy for because it is your goal. However, it is important to see the whole.

Holden: Do you feel yourself that you had a problem in the sense that you spent too much time on this?

Breivik: No, I think it was within the limits I set myself.

Holden: You said somewhere that this has no impact on 22 July. If it had any significance to the compendium, for example?

Breivik: Well, it's a statement from prosecutors that I have taken the word "Justice" from the Wold of Warcraft, but it's wrong. I have used the Chief Justice, which is the term for the chief legal manager in Norway, a so-called Supreme Court Justice. It is a title that exists in both the British and Norwegian systems, and it is a derivative of the Latin word that means man of the law. So I have not taken it from World of Warcraft, but I have taken it from the Norwegian legal system and the British legal system. But I know, that is, in World of Warcraft there are hundreds of titles, and I know that one of the hundreds of titles is something called Justicar. But that's not where I got it from.

Holden: You mentioned yourself that you had played other computer games, among other things, you mentioned two games themselves, Modern Warfare and Call of Duty.

Breivik: It's the same game.

Holden: It's the same game, yes. Tell us a little about it.

Breivik: It's called a first person shooter games, it's simply a war simulator. I do not really have very much liked the games, but it is very good if you want to simulate for exercise's sake. For example, the Red Army in China use a Modern Warfare version to train its soldiers in the simulation. And it is a war simulator that is used by the armed forces in the world, and that is what is Modern Warfare. So what was the purpose of spending some time on it.

Holden: Can you tell more how you used it? I see that you created a user account 18 January 2010. Then it registered a time of approximately, on average, ten hours a month for one year and four months.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: What, how did you take this game?

Breivik: As I just described, that it is simply a war simulator. You can get an idea of how the systems work term. You can try to work up, what to say, experience in use of the term systems. It is perhaps the most, the biggest advantage of the game. For you are of course no recoil when you shoot. But if you focus rebound exercise on the range, for example, then you can focus on the use of sight through the game. It is the great advantage of it. Outside of that, there is no particular advantage. And there are of course many types of term systems can be used. What I used to Utøya, it was a holographic sighting system, which was represented in the game.

Holden: Was it a conscious decision from you, that you chose the same type of view that you had, or that you purchased the same type of view that you used in Modern Warfare?

Breivik: Among other things. It was, therefore, one is a result of the other. So, I did not buy the aiming system, which cost 12,000 kroner because of Modern Warfare, but I practiced it through Modern Warfare, as a result of that I had bought aiming system. Because I chose the best aiming system that you could buy for money, so it's important to get it in the correct order.

Holden: Was there any particular scenarios you trained beyond what you have now told about the sighting system?

Breivik: I have just written a little about it in the compendium.

Holden: You, you smile?

Breivik: Yes, it was a situation where ...

Holden: Is this something to smile about?

Breivik: No, it's not, but I smile because I know where you want to take this. And it's very obvious where you want.

Holden: How do you think ... just take a small step to the side here. How do you think the survivor here, who have lost their children to Utøya. How do you react?

Breivik: They respond well in a natural way, with horror and disgust.

Holden: Why do you think they react that way?

Breivik: Why shouldn't they?

Holden: In such a context, do you think it is natural to smile then?

Breivik: I smiled because it was very obvious what you intended to say. So it was not on the content of what we talked about, but it was your obvious intentions.

Holden: If we go back to the scenarios you've trained on, tell me about it.

Breivik: There are hundreds of quests you can choose at Modern Warfare, and I practiced a scenario where I would be, where the Delta Force in Norway tried to make a pincer movement. And I trained specifically to avert a pincer movement.

Holden: What is a pincer movement?

Breivik: It is when one is trapped in an area of two flanks, and one is forced to fight their way through one of the flanks, ie, the weakest flank.

Holden: In what way you trained in the scenario?

Breivik: It was really just frontal attack against one of the flanks. A total of six people at once.

Holden: What were your conclusions based on this?

Breivik: The conclusion was that it was 100 percent chance of failure. But, that is, one trained on the course, I calculated that not one was surrounded by two Delta teams. For then there is no chance for survival. But I calculated two conventional law enforcement officers. Tried to calculate the chance of survival on the basis of how, what approach you used. And the same probability, if one were confronted with three or four armed conventional law enforcement officers.

Holden: This scenario can now be suggested. Did you ever thought about in which situation could occur?

Breivik: What I calculated when I had parked the car outside the government building, so I had assumed and calculated that it was turned full alarm immediately. And it would storm at least three, four people, armed, out of the government quarter. And that I had been exposed to a pincer movement within a radius of four blocks. And I had to fight me, that it was the only chance for survival. I consider the probability of surviving government building, and come away unscathed from it, as less than five percent. And I had trained to get out of this situation.

Holden: Okay. Should we immediately go on to talk about something else. If I just looked at Engh here, if there are any questions.

Engh: Yes, now Holden asked you about the different things you had simulated. With the game. Now you've talked about what I perceive as an attack from the Delta, or that you would meet Delta or the police.

Breivik: Yes.

Engh: Were there any other things you had set for you. We know that you ended up on Utøya.

Breivik: No, that is. I went through a regular, ie, shooting training, to be as good a marksman as you can. It ...

Engh: But are you talking about real fire training, or are you talking about the game?

Breivik: I'm talking about normal rebound exercise, and use of the sight systems that can be done largely through the World of Warfare.

Engh: So if we are to keep away the physical exercise, that exercise training with weapons, then I think that when you then run and play this game, I've never played it so I do not know how it is. But in the game as you train up ways to shoot at and hit on, it's like that, or?

Breivik: You are training to use the sight systems, and then you build up your experience with the use of vision systems.

Engh: What kind of experience is what you get then?

Breivik: It is well when it comes to, what to say, you acquire a new target, that target acquisition. I do not know what it is in Norwegian, the word.

Engh: No, what is it for something, you can explain it (not audible).

Breivik: target acquisition So, you have to train on target acquisition. So, if you defeat ten goals, then you do it in so many seconds, and when you train it, and use the term systems so you can navigate to a new target within a specified time.

Engh: What were the goals of this game?

Breivik: The aim, therefore, it is structured so that there are many different missions. There are hundreds of different missions, and there are many of the missions that can be compared to, what to say, attacks in reality. This is why it is used by many armies in the world. It is amazing to acquire experience, related to the sighting system.

Engh: But the goal, are you talking about when to shoot down any other person?

Breivik: Yes, that is what it is.

Engh: Then in the game so you can train themselves to shoot down targets, and when the target can be a person?

Breivik: Yes, that's right. It is a war simulator. That simulate shooting other people. The concept of the game.

Engh: Did you learn anything from it?

Breivik: Yes, as I said in place, you gain experience to use the sight systems, you do.

Engh: And what you then learned of this game, it was something you could use later?

Breivik: Absolutely.

Engh: Yes, what then?

Breivik: How?

Engh: Yes.

Breivik: No, first assumed I would not survive the government quarter.

Engh: No, but you did. You were on Utøya. And when I ask, did you take with you some of the lessons learned from this game when you were on Utøya, you had no benefits?

Breivik: I had a great advantage of it.

Engh: Yes, and how did you benefit from it?

Breivik: But, that is. If you know of a holographic sighting system, it is constructed in such a way that you could have given it to your grandmother, and she had become a top marksman. It is made for it to be used by everyone. So, in principle, so it really requires very little training to use it in an optimal manner. But it is of course, it helps if you have simulated a number of the simulators.

Engh: Mhm, but you are talking about, you were on an island you were on Utøya ...

Breivik: Mhm.

Engh: ... it was something that was simulated in these games? Such a setting?

Breivik: You, you can not ...

Engh: Well, I have not played it so I do not know ... Yes?

Breivik: You can not do more than what I just described.

Engh: No, okay, so just a view ...

Breivik: Mhm.

Engh: What you have described in relation to it.

Breivik: Yes.

Engh: Thank you.

Holden: What have you told us a little about these computer games, and you have said that the training increased your experience and expertise, as I understand you.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: You trained with firearms in any other way?


Breivik: I trained recoil training Løvenskiold Railway.

Holden: What is rebound exercise?

Breivik: Well, I bought a rifle, a Ruger Mini-14, ehm, the caliber 223, er, same as the Norwegian army. Ehm. 556. And when you go just on the range there is a hundred-meter target, ie a target a hundred yards away, and then uh, you train yourself on your accuracy and you get used to the recoil effect has.

Holden: Ehm. Okay. How often were you on the range?

Breivik: Not many times. Only four times, maybe?

Holden: Mhm. Do you join in Oslo gun club in June 2010?

Breivik: Yes, well, it must specify that what I am talking about now it was a rifle training.

Holden: Mhm.

Breivik: In addition to that it's shotgun training, which I have been to maybe six times.

Holden: Mhm.

Breivik: And in addition to it's gun training, which I have been to maybe, uh, 25 times.

Holden: Yes. I see you've been shooting training in Oslo gun club from July 2010 to 4 March 2011.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: this, these five, about 25 times on the Oslo gun club - what, what did you do?

Breivik: It is extremely hard to get permission to buy a gun in Norway, so, uh, it is required that you do not have anything on record, and it is required that you meet the requirements, which means basically that you are an active shooter. Ehm, I almost had to get, uh, uh, confirmation from the shooting head there, and then I had to shoot as many times. And it's quite a few times you should shoot to at all be able to apply.

Holden: And, for the Glock, you, you can later acquired - it was a legitimate purchase?

Breivik: It was a legitimate purchase.

Holden: Mhm. You have mentioned three weapons, and we know that it was ruger'n and Glock you had with you on Utøya.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: What had those weapons name?

Breivik: Mm hm (chuckles). Thus, in the setting you are asking about it now, so it sounds quite bizarre, but ...

Holden: Yes, I do not protest against it.

Breivik: I may well, I may well talk about the compendium, and what I have written about it in the compendium. Eh. I have written about the historical, European heroes, er, who has fought against the Islamic occupation, for example, in Andalusia. Then someone, a leader of the military forces there called El Cid ... Campeador. Eh, ehm. It's his nickname at least. Eh, he was a great historical hero, the greatest historic hero of Spain. And he had a sword which he gave a name, and he is not the only warrior in Europe has given a weapon a name. There are very many who have it and we know also from our own Norse mythology, where it was customary to give the weapons name, and I thought I would pass on a great European tradition, and when I chose the same.

Holden: Mhm. What names are you giving your guns?

Breivik: Eh, I called the rifle Gungnir...

Holden: What ...

Breivik: ¿who was Odin's spear, Odin's magic spear, coming back after you have thrown it, and Glock I called Mjølner, and as you may know, that is ...

Holden: Yes?

Breivik: ¿hammer warrior god Thor. And the support vehicle, which is the vehicle that I would run from the first location to the other location to third and then on, the vehicle so I gave the name Sleipner, the eight-legged horse, to Odin.

Holden: Mhm. These names, ehm, it was just something you used these tools, or did you also to mark them in any way?

Breivik: Yes, I marked them. Ehm, I wrote it in runes on all three.

Holden: in runes?

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: So then you use three Norse name that you noted on the items with runes.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: Ehm. What causes this reference to the Norse?

Breivik: It's like I said, that there is one, if you go back to the European war history, you will see that there are very many military, our ancestors, uh, had a tradition of calling up their weapons name, uh, there is even a tradition in the Norwegian army today, there are many of our Afghan soldiers giving their weapons name. Ehm, that's the way you try to describe it, it's bizarre and insane, but it is a European tradition to do it, and I think it's a great tradition, so I chose to do the same.

Holden: Mhm. Do you think there is still great?

Breivik: I think tradition is great.

Holden: Mhm. It is not pompous?

Breivik: Of course it is pompous.

Holden: Well, you said it was great, and you said that it is pompous ...

(Speaking in chorus)

Breivik: ¿no, that is, one can interpret it that way as you want. Eh, I think it is a tradition, a great European tradition.

Holden: Let's take a very prominent theme change, now that we are going over to the compendium, uh, so if we are to take a break, even if it is ten minutes before, so it might be natural to do so now.

Arntzen: The time is five past ten, so I think we start the compendium, Holden, also we try to stick to this, these pauseangivelsene.

Holden: Okay, 10:20? Yeah, okay.

Arntzen: Yes, twenty past, focusing on the break.

Holden: Then we'll walk over to the compendium. And yesterday when you described something of the situation when you got this assignment. Can you tell us a bit more in the context of how it happened?

Breivik: I was asked to take notes, and I wrote the compendium.

Holden: Can you give us more details?

Breivik: Mhm. No, it was in connection with the meeting in London, eh, I was asked to write a compendium, and I've written a bit about

Holden: Yeah?

Breivik: And I have not really written very much more about it, and I do not want to comment on it beyond that.

Holden: Yesterday we got the answer many times you did not want to comment on it.

Breivik: So, what you focus on now is the 2 percent that I do not want to talk about. I have been open to the police about 98 percent, uh, the information that is related to 22/7, and what you have hammered me yesterday, and what you are doing now, it is the two percent that I refuse to divulge. Although it is obvious that I won't share details, it is consistently your choice to go after the 2 percent that you know I do not want to talk about.

Holden: Yes. But can you explain to me why you do not want to talk about just that?

Breivik: I do not want to disclose information that may contribute to arrests.

Holden: Now, how on earth can talking about how you were asked to write compendium materialize in an arrest?

Breivik: I have explained what I could explain to the police - and I will not comment on it further, what happened in London.

Holden: For this is the question, what shall we say, the origin of the compendium. And as I have understood, and we'll talk about later, the compendium probably as important to you. Is that right?

Breivik: The compendium is not important to me, is important for the many. But the compendium is important, this is certainly true.

Holden: Okay, so we agree that the compendium is essential.

Breivik: Yes.

Breivik: But, that is.

Holden: Do you want it to be perceived as legitimate?

Breivik: Yes, the contents of compendium that represents more conservative direction, er, it is an attempt to add, to create a foundation for the far right in Europe ¿.

Holden: Mhm.

Breivik: associated with Crusader identity.

Holden: But, Wed ...

Breivik: It is the attempt to create a foundation for an ideology.

Holden: But when you now say that there is a desire on your part that it should form a foundation ...

Breivik: Yes?

Holden: won’t that foundation be strengthened, if you tell us a bit more about the origin of the compendium?

Breivik: No, I don’t think so. Eh, what's important Compendium is the content and not the circumstances. not how I put it together and made it.

Holden: Yes, what about this: Do you fear that it may be perceived as a cut-and-paste job that you sat at home in your bedroom and put together?

Breivik: It is not perceived as a cut and paste works. Yes there is a cut and paste parts. But, uh, it's 50 percent, 60 percent, cut and paste, that is essays that I have borrowed from other authors in Europe, which I believe represents very important information about things taking place in Europe and Norway, and 40 percent, I have made myself and written and composed myself. This is the whole compendium.

Holden: Mhm. And on the other hand, if you tell us a bit more about origin, maybe it could help to strengthen the perception that, uh, the message that ...

(Speaking in chorus)

Breivik: The purpose of the compendium, er, yes, initially the original title of it should really be "In Praise of the New Knighthood, " which is the title of a book that was written by one of the most important intellectuals in Europe, associated with the original
Crusades, eh, he wrote the book in the 1100s, and he made it into what became the Templar ... identity.

Breivik: ... and that the compendium would be a book number two in that direction. So it should be called "In Praise of the new knight hood." And it was to explain and legitimize the new direction related to the Crusader's identity. And that would explain how it should be, and how you can become the perfect knight, or the perfect (not audible words). So it consists of three parts. It is a historical part, an ideological component and a military part. And it's made to form a foundation for the development of a revolutionary right in Europe.

Holden: Let us go a little further. now you said some things that were interesting. You said that the book should be called "In Praise of the new knight hood, "and that it should explain the Crusader identity and explain howto become a perfect knight. Was this intention part of the mission?

Breivik: Yes, that's right.

Holden: Were there other guidelines that were issued in this regard other than the ones we discussed?

Brevik: It is the basis for the compendium, that is the 50 pages I have described. In addition, it was the lists of primary principles that we represent.

Holden: Let's see, now you mentioned two things that the court has not heard before. It was 50 pages?

Breivik: In connection with the meeting in London I was left with 50 pages of information. In addition, I got an overview of a handful of principles. And that is the basis for the compendium.

Holden: You said you were left with about 50 pages. What were they?

Breivik: I've written about it in the compendium.

Holden: I am not so interested in what you have written about this in the compendium. I want to ask you a question here and now, and hear what you answer.

Breivik: I do not want to comment on it. I explained what I have been able to police. I'm not going further now.

Holden: Is it because you do not remember it?

Breivik: I remember what I have explained to the police. And that's what happened.

Holden: I'm not so interested in whether you remember what you have explained to the police. What I am interested in is whether you remember about how (Not audible words)you got this assignment to write this compendium.

Breivik: I remember what happened. And that is what I have explained to the police.

Holden: What did you say? You said you have explained it to the police, then you can also say it here.

Breivik: After the meeting I was left with 50 pages of Information. These became the basis of the compendium.

Holden: You were left with 50 pages of information. Does that mean you were given 50 pages, right? Or it means that you wrote 50 pages?

Breivik: I have written compendium that I wrote down 50 pages of information.

Holden: What have you said in the interview, then?

Breivik: I have said that it was 50 pages of information. But I would not specify why it was given.

Holden: You were left with about 50 pages, this included the principles list?

Breivik: I was left with 50 pages, including everything.

Holden: Included everything? When we started talking about this, it is possible I'm wrong, but as far as I remember, as you said you were left with 50 pages and that you received a principles list. As I have understood you said that .

Breivik: You know, when you take enough mistakes. What I meant was that I was left with 50 pages and that it included a foundation for the compendium, which included the list of principles, that we stands for.

Holden: What is the principles list? Is there such a list with bullet points or is it something else?

Breivik: So, basically it's the principles that we stand for. We, the KT network, has two main points. One is that we are a organization of European indigenous people, and secondly we are a Crusader organization, that we want to help deport most Muslims from Europe. It is the basis for the establishment of KT.

Holden: Does that mean that there are two bullet points on that list?

Breivik: It was, but there are many principles. So it's probably more than two bullet points.

Holden: Yes, how many there were, then?

Breivik: No, those are the most important things we represents. It is irrelevant exactly how many bullets it had.

Holden: Yes, but you say that this is the foundation, that this is the essence of the compendium.

Breivik: I have told you the essence of why we are here now. And it is the two points that I have mentioned now.

Holden: Mm. Were there others?

Breivik: There are the two most important.

Holden: It means that there was more?

Breivik: Yes, there are several.

Holden: Can you tell any of them?

Breivik: So, beyond being an organization for European indigenous people and a crusader organization we want to preserve ... European countries as Christian nations. We want to ensure the Christian cultural framework in all countries. We support Israel's struggle against jihad. And it's part ...

Holden: So this is also on this principles list?

Breivik: These are principles that we advocate.

Holden: So it is in the principles list?

Breivik: And it is also in the compendium, yes.

Holden: So it is the principles, the list that you were given back in London?

Breivik: No, a list of principles was conveyed. Thus, it is what we stand for. how exactly it was phrased on that list is irrelevant. How it was given to me is irrelevant. So, these are principles that we stand for, and it was included in the 50 pages of information.

Holden: Can you tell us a little about ... Yes, now I see, now it's over time.

Arntzen: It is now a little over, yes. So if it is appropriate to pause there, as we take a twenty-minute break to ten over half eleven.

Arntzen: As negotiations continue. Be so good, Holden.

Holden: Thank you. Let's see, Breivik. I leave the subject of London. You told us that you were playing fulltime World of Warcraft for about a year, in summer 06 to summer 07 So you said that you may have started a little compendium of this period. But the way I perceived it is that it was only after the play period was over, that you started the bulk of the work on the compendium. Is that correct?

Breivik: (not audible) at the beginning of 2007.

Holden: Yes, but you did much work on the compendium, then?

Breivik: I did some, but not so much perhaps.

Holden: Yes.

Breivik: But I can not remember.

Holden: Yes. What was the reason why you waited so long, then the there's barely five years after you got the mission.

Breivik: M.m. Thus, the starting point for developing a compendium, is that you take the year off more, also you need to take enough time to work and develop a compendium. So it was that I would use least two years. And you need a financial foundation before you can start, and it is the cause of the capitalization period that I have described to the police. It started in 2002 and lasted until 2006.

Holden: Where you were left with about a million?

Breivik: Right.

Holden: how, or did you get any feedback from the KT Network that you'd start about five years later?

Breivik: I will not comment on it.

Holden: Why not?

Breivik: I do not want to comment on the contact I have had with others.

Holden: Although it can not lead to arrests?

Breivik: I do not want to comment on contact with others. I told what I can say to the police.

Holden: Can you describe the process when you were working on the compendium?

Breivik: Basically I had some information. One of the first thing I did was make a record of which areas and which points should be covered. And I made a list of the three sections. I knew it would cover all three parts, a historical part, an ideological component and a military part. And I wrote a lot in all the three parts, more or less from the start. And, that is, until I was done, as the compendium of perhaps 4500 pages. So I shortened it down to about 1800.

Holden: You suggested a relationship even 60-40, when it came to things you had from others, and things you had written yourself.

Breivik: I'm not quite sure how much, but maybe 30, 40 percent I have written myself.

Holden: The bulk of what is written by you, where do you find it?

Breivik: That's in part three. So, what is the starting point for the compendium was that it would cover all the topics that I thought it should cover. And when I did research in each area, I considered essays by various authors, and considered whether someone who had covered the topic in a good enough manner. And basically if it was, it was unnecessary for me to write about more on that point. Only the points I think that no one else has written so much, and covered just the points, I have written about themselves.

Holden: Was it ... This tripartite division of the themes, was it part of mission description from the beginning?

Breivik: It included all the three parts, yes.

Holden: Did you feel competent to write the military section in 2002?

Breivik: This was before I did study and research, so I did not feel competent to do so, no.

Holden: I wonder about this part, because among other things, you described Serbian war heroes being present at the meeting, but the military section is assignmed to a 23-year-old who has not been in the military

Breivik: I have described three individuals whom I met in London and four, if you include Serb.

Holden: No, no, I just remember ...

Breivik: you make it sound like (not audible) existence of a large group. But I have only referred to four people.

Holden: Okay, no, because I only remember when Engh talked about this Yesterday, you specified that it was in majority the Serbian war heroes.

Breivik: I saw it answered, yes.

Holden: (not audible) manifesto ...

Breivik: I was referring to a person..

Holden: But it aside. Have you ever thought about why you were assigned a task that you not felt quite competent?

Breivik No, I described it in a slightly pompous way, which I also have chosen to describe it as before. But in principle I was asked to create a foundation, and that's what I did. It was not anything more complicated than that.

Holden: You told us a bit about the title in place, that it originally it was planned that it should be called "In Praise of the new knight hood." What was the reason why there was that name?

Breivik: Well, as described on the cover of the compendium, the title is still there. But now its a subtitle. It was my own decision, so I thought that title is more appropriate. But I also included it under the title, because I think it is important.

Holden: Okay, the main title. Can you tell us about it.

Breivik: 2083 indicates a year that represents 400-year anniversary of the Battle of Vienna. As occurred in 1683. And after my and many others' opinion, it was one of the two main battles in European history. Because it prevented the Ottoman Empire from subjugating the whole of Western Europe. So 2083 is the 400th anniversary the most important battle in Europe.

Holden: Exactly. What about the other part? By the title.

Breivik: Yes, the "European Declaration of Independence"? It is taken from an essay that was written by an author who calls himself Fjordman. And I thought it was an appropriate title.

Holden: This is 2083, it has some significance in relation to what you had written as an ongoing civil war?

Breivik: I and many others in Europe, believe that this conflict is about to spread now in Western Europe, there will be a end to it within a few decades, and when I have chosen 2083 as a reference point for the possible time.

Holden: Okay. Lets see. on page 952 of the compendium. Let's see, here, here, it was not so ...

Arntzen: Wait a minute, just wanted to have time to find their way. Perm five, not right? Perm five?

Holden: Yes, it ... It is unlikely, it is probably not included in actual extracted yet. So far only on screen. What are we looking for something Here, Breivik.

Breivik: There is an overview of the expected scenario in Europe, is based on many political analyses from other cultural conservatives in Europe, who feel the same.

Holden: Okay, so ...

Arntzen: Holden, we can get a little bigger on the screen, but it is small to read.

Holden: But the juxtaposition and they dated in phase one, phase two and phase three, is there anything you have done, or is it from others?

Breivik: Basically it's written by me.

Holden: So the idea that we have a phase three, for example, from 2070-2083, is this a vision that you have expressed?

Breivik: It's impossible to predict the future but it is based on the assumption that Labor does not change the political courses. Then this is the view of the future. It's one of, well, it's just an estimate, one should not put so much emphasis on accuracy.

Holden: 2083, it was the working title and the hypothesis in relation to this scenario, all the way or you are operating with different time estimates?

Breivik: So, the essence of the message to myself and many others, is that within the next few decades the conflict will spread, escalate, if people do not change direction. And there is no accurate time estimates. I know that ...

Holden: But did you work with different time than the 2083 estimate?

Breivik: I remember talking to police about an e-mail they found where I had used in 2183, which then is a hundred years ahead. And I thought it might be possible that I registered that e-mail address too, different from the first e-mail address that I had ... Another option that I might have thought was that I had used it title before. But I don’t remember really. But it seems very far ahead, so I do not think I've used that title, although I may have mentioned it to police. I think I was very sure of it.

Holden: No, you create the e-mail that reads: year2183, a hotmail address, which you use on, from 17.10 08 This address, in 2183, it is active on the blog.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: What was the reason why you were on the blog, to start.

Breivik: You should know that I have had 30 e-mail addresses, and I do not think you should put so much emphasis on a e-mail address. I had trouble finding the names of these e-mail addresses. I had to have names that I did not, as I could relate to other names. And that is perhaps why I chose it the name. Maybe 2083 was taken, or maybe I chose it other causes.

Holden: Did you intend to use the blog for something, in connection with the compendium?

Breivik: It was a plan to try to distribute the compendium by uploading it on several blogs. I walked away from the strategy, but at some point it was the plan, yes.

Holden: And, yes, we see that 20 June the following year, ie 09, as create a new blog. And then e-mail address is 2083.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: So my question is

Breivik: What was the date on the other blog?

Holden: It was 20 June 09

Breivik: July 20 date for the change.

Holden: No, 20 June, June, 20 June 09 and the first was 17th October 08

Breivik: Ok.

Holden: So I just wonder if this sheds light on anything in relation to the title of the compendium.

Breivik: Mm. As we talked about it before, there may be a reason but I do not remember. It may have been other reasons for me to select it then.

Holden: Could it therefore have been so, that it is in June, June the is when you thought ...


Breivik: It's a date that marks the 500 anniversary of the battle. And maybe I was thinking that it is then better to choose a 500-year anniversary, than a 400-year anniversary. But I do not remember why I chose it then.

Holden: Because I also see that this e-mail with 2183's first, and then 2083 comes after a few months.

Breivik: I do not remember why. I do not know the cause.

Holden: Okay, okay. We are concerned that so far as to place, but how important is compendium for you?

Breivik: Well, the compendium is itself contains a lot information, the information highlights the problems that Norway and Europe Today, it is critically important that the information is communicated to the Norwegians, and Europeans so that they know what's going on. And Compendium is only the framework for the information. Does that answer your question?

Holden: No, I will recite something to you that you said in questioning that I made a note on, so you can comment on it. For you say on 23 last July,page 18, second paragraph, here it says at least the following: Financing part was very challenging and it took several years to earn enough money to finance the production of the compendium that really was a major operation on my part. What actually happened yesterday, are only fireworks around the presentation of the compendium, said the defendant. Does that sound correct?

Breivik: That is correct. The distribution of the information in the compendium, and the compendium itself was one of the primary motives for the operation.

Holden: So as I perceive it, the government building and Utøya was to create awareness about the distribution around the compendium?

Breivik: ask yourself. What is the cause of politically motivated violence? It is to contribute to social change. In order to help to social change then you have to either use the politically motivated violence to encourage social change, or as a distribution channel of a message which contributes to increased recruitment. And there are the two points that are the main reasons for 22 7, as you say

Holden: I'll finish off with this compendium, you said several times in go, and you have repeated today, that the compendium paints a glossy picture and that it is pompous. What I have wondered a little, what do you think the reason is that the compendium, or the ideology it is based on must be presented in such a way that a glossy picture or pompous?

Breivik: to ask you some questions, in other words, what you actually should ask you about instead, as a follow-up question is why is it necessary to do something to convey that knowledge, and one should actually focus on the Norwegian media and European media was actually the main reason why 22 July was because they are biased, they are political activists, they are not journalists, that is the follow-up question that you should have asked. But to answer your question now, why not it can stand on their own feet, that is compendium, there are various European direction ideological directions. Some of the principles are not, do not match. It represents quite a few directions on the ideological right wing in Europe, and the starting point is to try to unify the three trends in Europe which are: national conservatism that I stand for, National socialism and militant Christianity or orthodox Christianity. So basically to highlight the main areas that really different Europeans are concerned and try to form, creating a bridge between the different perceptions to fight under one banner.

Holden: But why should you appear so pompous?

Breivik: No, that is, when it comes to the military part and glorification of martyrdom, it has been communicated in a way that means that the likelihood increases that one can eh market traditions which are derived from, among other things, al-Qaeda, to the militant nationalists in Europe. It is to try to push eh what to say, these committed individuals to continue from the point they are today, it is to try...

Holden: Do you think it is a successful strategy?

Breivik: I think it is a successful strategy and basically that you make a resistance movement is that you try to create a foundation on which we then build on. The compendium is a contribution to the foundation. So it is not intended to represent a specific ideology, but it should represent at least three different main ideologies, and the objective, then, in turn, is to bridge the gap between the three ideologies

Holden: Mm. Ok. If yes, Engh has some questions.

Engh: Just before we go to the next topic Breivik: So that I have understood now, you wanted your compendium to create a platform, and you wanted to create something new and you want to reach out to someone who will follow your ideas. Is it, is it correct?

Breivik: It is not correct. They are not my ideas.

Engh: Yes.

Breivik: I am just a seller of ideas developed by others.

Engh: Yes. But you agree with the thoughts you write?

Breivik: I agree with those who have developed the mind.

Engh: Yes.

Breivik: Yes, that's right. But I am just a seller of a message.

Engh: I have though. Eh. But when yesterday we talked about why you feel that the world or society is unjust, and what you are talking about tradicalization points that you are keen to get passed, I realized that it is an important prerequisite to understand who you are today. Is it understood correctly?

Breivik: You know it is wrong to say that society is unfair. In other words, the current status in Europe, in Norway we do not have a real democracy, we have no freedom of speech, and are living under a dictatorship, like we see it, without real freedom of expression, it is a grave injustice.

Engh: Ok.

Breivik: And that relates specifically to the Norwegian press and European press, it is the main problem in Europe today

Engh: And is it a prerequisite for your conclusion, that is what you describe now, how you perceive society, it is an important premise the conclusion you draw?

Breivik: Well, it is one of several terms, yes, that's right.

Engh: And then I understood that in this compendium as explain you why you have come to this conclusion. Are it correct?

Breivik: Compendium contains information that explains it, yes.

Engh: Yes, okay. And then my question, the premise, that you explain for in the compendium, is that right?

Breivik: To a large extent, is that right.

Engh: Yes, what do you say?

Breivik: So, what is happening in Europe today is that we are threatened demographic, we are threatened by the fact that our culture and our ethnic group is deconstructed, we live under ...

Engh: But what I understand, that's your premise, yes, I have though.

Breivik: ... lack of freedom of expression. I stand by that, yes,

Grassland: Right, so you are responsible for the premises.

Breivik: I mean, I think it is so critical for the Europe and Norway Now, to change course, otherwise we will not survive as an ethnic group, and what can we say, trust between the citizens will be degraded in this extent that the premise that Norway will not exist in 100 years if this continues

Engh: Ok, so I understand your premise here, and I understand you are concerned about. But what I wonder, i, I wonder if it is almost your last interview I, it is an interrogation that is taken 27 March this year, it's 0834 defense on page 46, you say something about this I want you to elaborate a bit. Where you say the last paragraph under Section 10.1 other topics, other topics, "Basis," when I read it you Breivik, "The basis of the compendium is to help create framework that causes consequences. It is not in our interest to angle it from another angle, it is a subjective work designed to justify politically motivated violence. " And so read through the interrogation, and we will correct, "but it does of course not mean that the premises are not true. " What do you mean by this?

Breivik: I never said that it will create the premises. There was some error. And what I have said is that the injustices that exist in Europe today justify the conclusion.

Engh: And the conclusion?

Breivik: The conclusion is that Norway and Europe, given that we do not have real freedom of speech, that we do not have a free press, that we are a liberal and cultural marxist dictatorship and if we do not take hold, so first, we will become a minority in our own capital, then our country, we will lose our culture, we will lose our ethnic group and we will lose our country if people don't say clearly that we do not accept the direction we're going in.

Engh: I understand. But little then.

Breivik: But it does not go on to create the premises.

Engh: Okay.

Breivik: It is completely wrong.

Engh: Ok.

Breivik: The premise is today as the injustices described by the authors which I have included in compendium. It will not say that they support violence, or that they are against democracy, the only thing these authors do is to identify an imbalance and injustice, and so one can conclude the premises, and choose to engage politically or not.

Breivik: But based on what I read now so I wanted to ask you or ask yourself the following questions, what is most important to you, political change or to use violence?

Breivik: Violence is not an end. But violence should be used when not have other options again. I have tried all the others to get our vote to be heard. But the Norwegian press and European press, which censor all on the right side, which is the nationalists and Cultural conservatives, it is not possible to ... Thus peacefully revolution has been made impossible, and it is only violent revolution that is possible.

Holden: Breivik, there was one thing we do not land before we go further, when did you finish the compendium?

Breivik: So, you are never finished with a compendium, this was only a draft. And it is a preliminary draft, as I have described it. So you can never say that ... compendium, so I thought that, was ever done. But there is a preliminary version, which others can develop further if they wish. But I concluded, I concluded the fall of 2009, I think.

Holden: Yes, the fall of 2009.

Breivik: but later I included a few things, information related the description of the different periods, including the log.

Holden: So we have the military part more or less completed in the autumn 09

Breivik: It was completely finished, yes, except what I just mentioned now.

Engh: Do I have to grab one thing, Breivik, you say the compendium is a draft. And then you said earlier that some of what happened 22 July was to market this compendium. Don't you think it was important to finish the draft before you went on the 22 July?

Breivik: No, that is, the way I look at it, it is not possible to be finished with it.

Engh: But if you agree what it says, what you had in hand on 22 July. Or are you a little unsure if that is what you stand for?

Breivik: I included all the information in the compendium (Engh interrupts, not audible)

Engh: Do you agree with everything that was there 22 July?

Breivik: I do not agree with everything.

Engh: Okay. So you kill 77 people without being completely in agreement with the content of the compendium.

Breivik: Let me explain (interrupted)

Engh: Yes, please explain to me, yes.

Breivik: What's in the compendium, it does not represent my opinions. It represents a great many Europeans opinions. I am in a network that fronts a group of principles. I personally agree with perhaps 90 percent, 95 percent of all these principles. I do not agree with everything. But I was asked to create a compendium and distribute it. And I agree with most of it. But there are small things that I do not agree with, but as I had a responsibility to because I was asked to do so.

Engh: OK, so this is out of your free will?

Breivik: One must take into account also other ... (Interrupted)

Engh: Who must be taken into account?

Breivik: Of those which I am affiliated with.

Engh: Well. So you do not have a free will in this?

Breivik: No but that is, the point is that when the intention is to unite the three groups, then you have to pay attention to what these other two groups are interested in their interests. Therefore, one must give of their own interests to reach a consensus. And that is what is project, where I try to develop the resistance that has been in Europe after World War II. And then one ends up with something that is realistic and can appeal to more people,

Engh: So what's in the compendium, and that you took action for 22 July, are those that the KT network stands for? But you are in agreement with most of it, is that correct?

Breivik: I'm standing in for the very, very much.

Engh: Yes. But why do you say that it is a draft?

Breivik: No, you should not emphasize it too much.

Engh: No, but you say yes, and then I wonder what a draft for something?

Breivik: There is a written product that is not edited. It is a draft.

Engh: Did you ever thought if you should have the product properly fully quality controlled before going into action 22 July?

Breivik: Absolutely.

Engh: Why did not you?

Breivik: No, it's safety. Unfortunately, the Norwegian intelligence, European intelligence, they have so many resources that they preclude the formation of networks, ie conventional organizations. So it is a situation that we must pay attention to.

Engh: But you felt that you were about to be taken then. Is that why ... (Interrupted)

Breivik: No, but if you knew, you know of course what content is, and I have edited some of it, and got some input, but in very large degree it is not edited.

Engh: So ideally, you would have had more time for you to be completely finished with everything that was there?

Breivik: Yes, that's right.

Arntzen: I have just interject. You say you had input. Who was it you got input from?

Breivik: From among other things, one person that I am associated, I have described, associated with the KT network.

Arntzen: Is it one of the two other cells in Norway?

Breivik: I do not want to comment on who it is. But it is one of the which I am affiliated.

Arntzen: Did the other person who was told to also write anything during this meeting in London?

Breivik: I do not want to comment on it.

Holden: I would like to follow up with a question, too. 95 percent of the compendium you agree in. Can you spread mention one or two examples of something you do not agree with?

Breivik: Im personally, what to say, quite a capitalist. But I recognize that trying to unify a wide range of individuals, then you have to give at that point, because most are less capitalist than I am that's one example

Holden: Let's see, Breivik. We will make a small change of topic. When began to think the idea of carrying out a violent reaction?

Breivik: The first thoughts have been perhaps from the age of 20.

Holden: You know, even before the Knights Templar?

Breivik: Yes, 19 years old, maybe.

Holden: Describe for us your thoughts at the time.

Breivik: No, I remember that we were talking to various people, about what they saw as injustices in society. And I've just been very skeptical of Muslim immigration from when I was 15 years. So in some settings it would have been considered improper, Thus, we speak not so very serious about it, but whether to attack the Muslims in Norway and Muslim groups. And, one can say that, it is important to note is that the militant nationalists in Europe are split in two when it comes to goals. Half think that you should attack the Muslims and minorities. The other half believes that we should attack the elites, those responsible and make them pay. So it is important to emphasize that there are two groups that mean something quite different among militant nationalists. For example, Laser man and NSU supported attacks on minorities in order to harm multiculturalism like that. I disagree with it. I think it isn't the Muslims' fault that they have been invited here, it's completely different people's fault.

Holden: OK. So ...

Breivik: But at one point, it was perhaps well before it happened Benjamin Hermansen in Oslo, I was of the opinion, I actually shared my opinion with the others, that it was most appropriate to attack the Muslims in Norway. But then I changed opinion, after what happened to Benjamin Hermansen. After that I changed the perception, and I thought it would be detrimental to do it the other way. It would be more appropriate to go right after the ones responsible for it. So I changed my view at that time.

Holden: Now you told us a bit about when you started to think about it. When you decided to carry out an action?

Breivik: Eh, 2006 possibly.

Holden: What is the reason you remember it?

Brevik: I remember I went on a reconaissance mission for the first time.

Holden: What did you ...

Breivik: I think I did ... (Pause)

Holden: How do you go do this?

Breivik: I remember going to reconnoiter the government quarter, I think, for the first time in 2006. I also remember that I reconnoiter the NRK-location, but I do not remember exactly what year it was. It can have been between 2006 and 2007. Maybe 2008.

Holden: What was it you did when you say you reconnoiter?

Breivik: I thought really about, if and where the vulnerabilities were. I was well, it was very early phase I actually wondered how an attack could be done.

Holden: was this recorded somehow? Something in writing? Some purchases?

Breivik: In the compendium, I explain descriptions related to goals. It says everything except about my targets in the compendium. The only thing I have actually never written anything about the target in case it was revealed in any way.

Holden: So this was just thinking, to the extent that one can ...

Breivik: There were plans, but there were plans that were not recorded.

Holden: You will see a page from the forensic psychiatric statement the Husby and Sørheim. Page 124, you see. If we go a little bit down ... "In the period from February to November -07 -09 spent most of my waking time writing. He says: This was the writing phase, I still played WoW, but much less. I had a very good relationship with the mother, we ate together, but there was otherwise little connection. Spent most of the time in my room. What I wrote was becoming more politically incorrect. The subject says that he already from 200 ... "

Breivik: Before we go there, Holden. I have previously commented that the report is totally worthless ...

Holden: Yeah.

Breivik: And it is known by Asbjornsen and Moe. It is fictional, that is, 80 percent of the content is fictional. And much of it what it says is not true.

Holden: Can I read it first, and then you comments afterwards?

Breivik: Yes, okay.

Holden: "The subject says that he already had vowed in 2002 to live for the fight, but that time was unclear what form this would take. When he moved in with mother, the idea was reinforced. The subject smiles. Plan B was a plan in 2007. I started book, and so eventually I had to become an activist. The experts ask what subject means by the word activist. subject replies that he is planning to carry out executions. He adds, is not the same as murder. When the compendium was almost completed in 2009, came the ideas that that violence was necessary. In the military section of the compendium it says: "Shall bring a little more.

Arntzen: Holden. Can you make sure you read into the microphone?

Holden: It was not easy, I have a bit difficult (not audible). "In his compendium subject says that he wrote from 2007 Part 1 history, and part 2, ideology, first. Part three, the military part, was written last. And the operational part with descriptions of the operation last. "And then maybe what I think is most interesting. "The plan that executions were necessary emerged as I wrote in 2009, he says. " From this, Brevik, so it may seem that the decision whether a violent action grew from 2009. What is Your comment on that?


Breivik: As said, this report is completely worthless. Eh, I have noted that Moe has his own theory for what I have done, and so have they support their theory by, er, make up things that I should have said, but I have not said, I have never said this and, uh, it might be nice to have proof if the conversations had been taped, but unfortunately it was not taped. If they had been taped, it would have proved that it is pure fiction. I think you can just ignore it report in its entirety.

Holden: Okay, so there are no misunderstandings, this is fiction?

Breivik: Yes, it's fiction.

Holden: So saying, the plan required executions grew for, as I wrote, in 2009, he said Is pure fiction.

Breivik: It's fiction. Mhm.

Holden: You got any idea where Husby and Sørheim may have gotten the idea to write this?

Breivik: They have been given access to all interrogations. they have even explained their theory to me, and I have denied their theory, but they chose not to believe my explanation. Therefore, they try to support their own theory by fabricating.

Holden: Mhm. I'll tell you something Breivik. I also wonder a bit if the decision to make a violent action first appeared in you in 2009.

Breivik: And why?

Holden: No, I can give you some examples.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: The company Geofarm, when was it created?

Breivik: In 2009.

Holden: Yes, May 2009.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: Was it an important prerequisite for implementing the action?

Breivik: Uh, yes, that was it. Mhm.

Holden: Mhm. This e-mail changed as we talked about before, well ...

Breivik: But before you continue to go there, to understand why Geofarm was important was because that it was during what I called credit acquisition phase, the reason to start it was that I needed a legal identity which was the company to proceed with the the credit acquisition phase, I thought. That's why it was then.

Holden: Okay, but that is Geofarm, an important prerequisite for the implementation of the action.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: Created in mid-May 2009. So we have this change of e-mails we talked about in place, ie that e-mail address that you used on Blog ... eh ... Blogspot, shifted from 2183 to 2083. It happened in June 09

Breivik: I do not think you can conclude something like ...

(Speaking in chorus)

Holden: What?

Breivik: ... I'm not even very sure.

Holden: Yeah? No, I just noted that there was a change then.

Breivik: It may well be that I had in 2083 all the time, but that I would create 31 e-mail addresses that were related to 2083, or by other reasons. So I do not think you should put as much ...

Holden: No, but then, as I have in mind. But I have a couple points to, you know, that I would like your comment to.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: For the third, then, in September / October, so do you even just pointed out, applying for credit cards, there was a premise for implementation of the action?

Breivik: What, what was the date on it you said?

Holden: September / October 09

Breivik: Yeah, uh, I started on the credit card debt, most probably after I had finished the compendium. Or, at least in the final phase, for it was exactly that which marked the, uh, the operational phase, it was the first of all the phases.

Holden: Yes, even you, as we have mentioned, for the fourth, recorded that "the Compendium is complete," and so it was in page 1684 of compendium, and it also recorded autumn 09

Breivik: Yes. The plan was always to start at the operational part after I was done writing, yes.

Holden: So you rule out that it is as it says in the report by Husby / Sørheim, that, that the military part came to the end.

Breivik: Yes, i rule it out

Holden: So ...

Breivik: The military part I started in parallel, uh, with the other. Ehm, and, ehm, it took very long to write it, because I have written it, most of it myself, and it was done with the the date you referred to.

Holden: So did you say to Engh that Modern Warfare was, that you learned something from it, that there was also a prerequisite and exercise for action, and that was from 18 January 2010.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: So we know that the first acquisition that can be directly linked to 22 July is the purchase of a Pelican-case 23 april 2010.

Breivik: Well, in other words you can say that the credit cards was the beginning of the operational phase.

Holden: Mhm.

Breivik: The first purchase, perhaps, was probably some uniform stuff in early 2009 or 2010.

Holden: Do you understand how I can arrive at the conclusion...

Breivik: Sure.

Holden: ... that there may not have been any violent plans until 2010.

Breivik: So, what your logic is that because I started the operational phase in 2009, I had only thought about violence in 2009. It's your logic, and what I have said all time, and what is the actual reality is that I had a capitalization phase from 2002 to 2006, so I took a sabbatical and then I had a credit acquisition phase which was followed by the operational phase. It had been a plan all along, but, uh, you can say that I started, and I decided to go in that direction in 2006, so it differs a bit from your theory.

Holden: Mhm. No, we'll find out the more we later speak to Husby and Sørheim, so, so we can hear their comments to this particular statement, then, as they have been included in the declaration. Regardless of when this decision was taken ... Engh has a question.

Engh: We change subjects, Breivik, only one other thing while we'll discuss while still here: Eh, you, when you had been informed of the first report and 2009, uh, I have noticed that you said the experts had information from the interrogations? In your interviews you always say 2006. How did they come up to 2009?

Breivik: No. I was referring to all the text on that page. So, a lot of information. What I have said is that they have had access to interrogations ...

Engh: Yes.

Breivik: ... so they know what point I have ...

Engh: Yes, and where were you in 2006.

Breivik: ... and they can therefore consider the factual realities. And so they have launched their own theory, as opposed to actual realities. That's what I meant by it.

Engh: Yes, okay. But where did they get the number 2009 from? Is it just a year?

Breivik: No, well, uh, I have told what happened to them ...

Engh: Yes. Yes.

Breivik: ... and so have Husby and Sørheim said that "no, we do not believe in you - we believe that you got the first thoughts of violence in 2009. "

Engh: Okay, when they write ...

Breivik: They've written that I've said it.

Engh: Okay, okay, thanks.

Holden: I think it was an interesting point that Engh was up, so I pursued it a little further. Where did they get number 2009 from? What do you think about it?

Lippestad: prosecutor, so, so, if I'm allowed to remark, Thus, the specialist Statement is not an explanation that he has signed and accepted, there is one, an understanding from two experts and He says that they have misunderstood him. I think it is wrong to go further on it when he responded to it, he says that they have misunderstood He also, we hear about those they have done it or not. But I think it is wrong to continue

Arntzen: Now we interrogate Breivik, Lippestad, and I allow that there made follow-up question to this.

Breivik: And there is no confusion at all.

Holden: But I just wonder, like Engh, why 2009?

Breivik: That you'd ask the experts about.

Holden: Did you have mentioned 2009 in a different context to them, do you think?

Breivik: No, that is what comes out of the interrogations is that I started the operational phase in 2009, and they therefore believe that it was when I got the first thought of violence ...

Holden: Mhm, just like for the record ...

Breivik: . And that's the experts' theory.

Holden: For the sake of clarity, we have received, you made a list in which you pointed out, it was, 200 lies ...

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: ... in, in the declaration.

Breivik: Yes, more than 200 lies.

Holden: Okay, mhm. Pointed out the lies?

Breivik: Eh, I started working on an op-ed, and so I made a overview. I started with the first visit. This was the period when I became aware ... I concluded that I do not have time to cover everything, there is too much information, so I only covered part of it, so it may well be that there are even more lies

Holden: Okay, no, it's important, even if it is not included in that list.

Breivik: No, it may well be true, but if I, if I were include all lies, it would have been a document of 300 pages, instead of 38

Holden: I understand. Then we go to what I've started on. Regardless of when this decision was taken, tell us about what it original plan was - then you might understand what I want?

Breivik: Yes, the original plan. Ehm. I assessed many alternatives, but the main plan was to make, uh, three bombs. Two of the bombs were to be on a ton - each. And the third bomb was be about 500 pounds. And the plan was structured so that there would be three car bombs that were followed by a firearm based action. So it was a very big operation, and the plan was to use a support vehicle which is a mini motorcycle, Honda, Gorilla, which costs approximately 18,000. It is, like, little bike that can weigh 60-70 pounds, which in the logistics context, is used to run from one vehicle to another.

Holden: If we take the bombs first, what three targets did you have in mind?

Breivik: Eh, the first two targets were very clear, one was government building, the other was the Labour Party headquarters. Eh, and the third, I was very uncertain. I considered many options.

Holden: Why did the plan fall through?

Breivik: Eh, I can try to talk a little bit how I reasoned?

Holden: Mhm.

Breivik: Eh, basically I had major reservations about Labour Party's headquarters, for there are civilians, innocent businesses nearby, including the Norwegian Tourism, and I knew that everyone, uh, the Norwegian Tourist Association would perish if I detonated a large car bomb there, where I then calculated that the building would collapse together. Also I thought that there are few better targets in Norway, but when it came to the third car bomb as I considered the building called Aftenposten today, and where the aim was to bomb Aftenposten, eh, but Aftenposten represent only a small part of the building, only one or two floors, and I calculated that It would be far too many innocent civilians in the building, er, and that the target was therefore unacceptable.

Holden: Mhm.

Breivik: Eh, I have considered the Parliament on several occasions to be targeted for the 500-pound bomb, er, on both sides, actually

Breivik: City Hall has been a goal, and the castle has been a goal. Other goal has been the quarter surrounding the Halvorsen condtori, it is parliamentary quarter, uh,

Holden: You have now entered a number of goals.

Breivik: Yes, this here was with regard to the third goal that I was very uncertain. But if I actually chose the Palace, the royal family would not be there at the time, so as I saw it was unacceptable to attack the royal family, so it would be in a setting where I could be assured that they were not present.

Holden: What, why would it be unacceptable?

Breivik: Because the vast majority of nationalists and cultural conservatives are supporters of the monarchy, including myself. And so I considered it as an unacceptable goal. We want to give the royal family a warning, but It would have be an attack on the castle without them being present. And It would not be to attack the palace as their residence, but Labour Party's official quarters, where they meet world leaders. So the goal, as it is described, is more like Labour Party's official headquarters.

Breivik: not an attack on the monarchy at all.

Holden: Can you talk a bit about how you assessed the various goals? What was it you did? Did you get a tour of the Parliament, checked pictures from the web, or you went around and saw?

Breivik: When it came to the government building, I did reconnaissance total of eight times. When it came to the Parliament, the reconnaissance I did maybe four times. And I have been there a few times in connection with the Masonic Order, and then I used those opportunities to do additional reconnaissance, because the Mason building is right next door. So a total of four times.

Holden: But what have you done then? Have you been in the Masonic building and then looked over at the Parliament? Is that how one reconnoiters?

Breivik: No, but I have considered weaknesses in the building. If it could be be an old stable input, which I could drive a car through. Thus, the essence when you are considering, is to reveal weaknesses in the building. And the optimal detonations are inside the building, preferably under building. Alternatively, that one runs into the building's courtyard. I considered all weaknesses. And considered what, and how to do it. It was not possible by the Parliament. Then, i thought that when it came to the government building, you would be able to inflict much more damage to the building if you managed to get a bombe into the building, so that there was a detonation such as the World Trade Center in 93 But I considered it too difficult, and if I had done it, I would I probably not succeed... yes it was therefore too difficult.

Holden: So you ended up with the government quarter, Labor's head office and the Royal Palace?

Breivik: Is it true.

Holden: Was this the primary objective?

Breivik: Yes, absolutely. So, I did not really expect to survive the first goal. I had perhaps survived to the Labour Party headquarters. I figured that the likelihood was small to do more than that. But in case I should survive, not only government building, but the next two goals, so I planned a firearms based action in that I drove outside the Palace on a mini motorcycle, which was then lifted down from the trunk to this car bomb, and then started a firearm based operation until I was killed.

And it was based on a plan, very detailed plan, a plan I spent a lot of time, which went on to run from the castle and down to Blitz House, and execute as many blitzers as possible. Ehh, after, if you survived it without coming into confrontation with Delta, or police, the plan was to run two blocks away to-day newspaper offices and execute as many Times journalists as possible. Times is regarded as a propaganda channel for the Labour Party, it was called earlier Arbeiderbladet. If I survived the Times, probability of survival, it is of course small, so the plan is to drive to the Socialist Left Party's headquarters, which is a few blocks away, and execute as many there as possible. And, it was not appropriate to add more goals than that, because it would be impossible to survive it. But the plan was not to surrender before the entire operation was carried out. So in principle it was a so-called suicidal action, where the probability of survival were nil.

Holden: You said you spent much time on it ...

Breivik: It was the main plan which I have spent unbelievable amount of time.

Holden: We shall only dwell on it before we move on. You said you had spent much time on the weapons-based part, to plan it. What did it involve?

Breivik: The planning consisted of, first, to acquire the armor, so-called body armor. In addition to ammunition and firearms in itself. It is very difficult to acquire armor, so I used very long on the arms procurement phase, it is described quite detailed in the compendium.

Holden: So when you talk about the long preparation time, it was Thus, to obtain items and the kind of thing.

Breivik: To just simply train with armor on, also..

Holden: How were you trained with armor on?

Breivik: Well, it was impossible to train with armor. It would arouse attention, and I would be reporting to the authorities. So what I did was to fill up two backpacks, the front and rear, with stone, total weight of 30 pounds. And then I went for long walks with the two backpacks. And I did in the neighborhood, including the Skøyen and I did it on Rena. And although it looks a little strange, but didn't arouse attention to the extent that I was reported. So that's the way I to train the muscles of the body that assumes you can move and work well in a slightly heavy armor and, with much ammunition on the body.

Other player: I am sorry to interrupt, but you need more detailed microphone both, I think.

Holden: I forget it every time, sorry. But it was not the plan.

Breivik: You know, the training was a prerequisite in all cases but It is true that the plan was not carried out.

Holden: What was the reason why it was not so?

Breivik: The reason was that it was much harder than I thought to make, to construct a bomb. It took the much longer. There were many problems. I had problems with the synthesis of picric acid. It was the main problem. In addition, there were very many
other processes that I had problems with. There were very many issues.

Holden: Yeah, what processes was it that was problematic?

Breivik: I had great difficulty finding a way where I could crush ammonium pills. I ended figuring it out, but I'm wasted lots of time on other potential methods before.

Holden: Were there other issues than things that are related to production process of the bomb?

Breivik: It was the fact that I lacked the raw materials to make enough. I was missing sulfuric acid, acetylsalisylic acid and a few other things.

Holden: What about money?

Breivik: Yes, well, it is also a point. The funds I had saved I had to transfer that amount to a man who owns the farm. 30.000 NOK. After I had done it, I had no more savings left, and then I had to use credit, which I got through credit cards.

Holden: When did you change the plan, then? Or abandoned the original plan?

Breivik: It was probably clear that I would not be able to make a second bomb in late June, maybe.

Holden: In interviews you have stated it to be between 30 June and 10 July. So it is consistent with what you say now.

Breivik: But the plan was that it only would take three to four weeks to make three bombs on Rena. But it took three times as long to make one.

Holden: I will come back a little to it afterwards. What was the alternative plan?

Breivik: There was no alternative plan to the point where I gave up that idea. What you may refer to is as you say correctly, there was an alternative plan. It was to make smaller bombs, 50-kg bombs. And it was to combine it with the use of one large car bomb, and maybe one or two 50-kg bombs. And in that context were the targets changed. And I decided that it would be Aftenposten, by running a bomb, a 50-kg bomb, wearing a FedEx uniform on a disguised truck as. The goal was to collapse the floor. It would most likely have happened. But when the probability of doing something else afterwards, was small.

Holden: When was the idea of Utøya goal, appeared?

Breivik: You can say that my review of NRK, VG and Aftenposten. The reason was actually geographical . The VG was geographically unfavorable, and so did NRK and Aftenposten, but as an ideological goal, it is clear that Labour Party Broadcasting, is by far the most attractive target in Norway.

Holden: What was the reason why it was Utøya, and some you have mentioned now?

Breivik: When I came to a situation where it was impossible to make more than one bomb, so it resulted in a strategy where you had to choose a bombing, and a target that was based on shooting action. And that goal was be either the journalism conference, that this was actually a plan that I thought of back in late 2010, when it came so far that I could make a bomb. So the goal would be the conference in Norway, is the national journalism conference in Tønsberg. It was the most attractive target, as I saw it.


Breivik: in Norway because the Norwegian press bears the greatest responsibility, perhaps as much as Labour, the situation we are in today. So I did all, in other words, I did not so much research on the time, for it was a very early stage. But the conference was by far the most attractive target in Norway, if there was a shooting-based operation. I also considered to be combine that with a car bomb there, it could have happened, but unfortunately I was delayed. I could not get a farm early enough and why did not I scope out the conference in 2011. And then there was then the next best target in Norway, who was the Labour Party's national convention. I did everything I could to reach that date, but because of human limitations so I did not. So I ended in a situation where I had three car bomb targets. I estimated three to four weeks, and at worst, if I do not managed to do it before the summer holiday ... I considered the likelihood for that small for it because I was so sure I would be done, but if it was unlikely then Utøya would be a target.

Holden: Then, the clock is 12, then ...

Arntzen: Yes, as appropriate, taking a break. When we take lunch at one o'clock.

Arntzen: Be so good prosecutor, then you can continue the examination.


Holden: Let's see, Breivik, you told us in the place that you assumed that you had been on a reconnaissance of the Government buildings eight times. What was what you did when you reconnoiter?

Breivik: Eh, well, when we talked about in, there was one thing I forgot.

Holden: Yes.

Breivik: There were alternative plans. Perhaps I can take it ..

Holden: Take the first step.

Breivik: .. first. So I had an alternative plan in case I would be unable to create enough explosives. it was an alternative strategy to use a so-called poor man's atomic bomb, as I have described it earlier. It is basically a propane tanker truck that hijacked, and that detonated in a two stage detonation using approximately 50 kg explosives. And the explosive power of such a successful detonation, if it is successful, is between 0.1 and 0.2 kilotons. But considering that there will be a huge detonation, it can only be used by a few locations in Oslo because the goal is obviously to prevent innocent civilians from dying. So the two goals that were appropriate to focus on the setting, had really only government building or to attack the 1st May parade that has a starting point by at Youngstorget.

Holden: What was the reason why you abandoned this plan?

Breivik: It failed for the simple reason that I had access to produce a large car bomb, without bringing in a propane tank.

Holden: Mm. When to blow up a charge in connection with a 1 May parade. Do you ever thought about how many lives could be lost then, or?

Breivik: It is difficult to estimate, but up to several thousand people, on the basis that it is 10,000 gathered at Young Square 1 May train, so I calculated that there is a whole cultural marxist elite, the vast majority of communists, communists active in Norway collected in the parade, there would be some innocent people who had died, one part, but the percentage below 10 percent, to end.

Holden: What you build on it that it is below 10 percent?

Breivik: No, that is, in principle 1 May parade that starts from a collection point, starting from Youngstorget to another place, I did not do as much research related to the collection point in beginning, it's the, the only event of the year in which Marxists are gathered, politically active Marxists are gathered, it is the international communist day.

Holden: Would you rather have this as a goal?

Breivik: What I considered , was that such a, such a large attack was too much, so I considered it to be unacceptable, I looked at it like that Norway and / or the Labour Party should get a warning before a large attack, and that warning was 22 July.

Holden: Yeah, okay. I see, I see. Then I think we are facing back to what I started with, you told us in the place that you had reconnaissance eight times by the government quarter. What exactly was this reconnaissance ?

Breivik: I do reconnaissance in two ways, perhaps four times as I reconnoitre from a distance, I observed the building from a distance, by four departments in each case, so I walked right past, and to avoid be flagged or arouse suspicion, one can really only offer a glance, and one must try to gather as much information as possible on the few times you are able to do so. I did not chance to use the Google street view, although of course it was a opportunity as well, but I was afraid that it could be flagged electronically so, but what I was looking for was, of course ways to come under built, any weaknesses, which could drive in, whether there was a large enough space to run into with a car, what are limitations, all possible such details.

Holden: Yeah, okay. And so, the four times you were at a distance, how far away were you when?

Breivik: No, that is the closest I came was just to walk on the sidewalk, just outside the building.

Holden: But the four times when you were at a distance, where were you then?

Breivik: The first time was when VG-building. And then there was a bit Further down the Grubegaten. The second time was at Deichman library. Another time was at Hammersborg square.

Holden: How long were you observing at each of these places would you estimate?

Breivik: I do not remember exactly, but I've tried to create an overview for the police, and that will not be more specific than the really.

Holden: Did you discover any specific information when you stood by the VG-built, Hammer Borg's Square, down Grubegata?

Breivik: its pretty limited what you can observe from so far away, but some of the starting point for reconnaissance is not necessarily the building, but to teach you about the area, whether it is a one way street, how possibly can run away from there, to learn how the area around the quarters is set up, and how to run in and where you can run out. And then I concluded that it was only an entrance to the quarter and it was Grubegata, and then I heard Of course, if the case went on to set up roadblocks.

Holden: The four times that you were a little closer, as you mentioned, among else walking by on the sidewalk. Were there other places you were close, or were you close in other ways?

Breivik: It was probably the closest I came.

Holden: Yes, and what ... you stopped and looked at the building or thrown a look as you passed by?

Breivik: Eh, I never stopped up. I just threw a glance.

Holden: So the times when, or the person or the times you walked by building and threw a glance, did you discover something important?

Breivik: It was the points that I described that I was concerned about. But anyway, it's important, of course, when reconnaissance is blending into the environment. So it is important that you then have a Claes Ohlson bag or something that can, uh, substantiate why you're there.

Holden: Mhm. You looked for cameras, for example?

Breivik: I was considering doing it, but it would be too risky if you lifted your head up and looked up and saw the cameras. The would be a very effective way to get noticed, so I chose not to. But I assumed that it was more or less 100 percent camera coverage.

Holden: Okay, but you didn't see a single camera.

Breivik: I did not see the cameras.

Holden: Yes.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: Only, I sit and wonder about - is there really any particular risk to take a break, sit at the fountain, take packed lunch and look at high-rise building. Was it in 2006?

Breivik: You'd probably have to ask someone else, because I do not know procedures of PST in Norway, but it's better to be, to assume that there is more security than it actually is.

Holden: Did you have any observations relating to the guards in the building?

Breivik: I assumed they had external guards. And that there were internal guards. So I assumed it was a monitoring center one or two blocks from there, someone was in the camera room, and there were armed guards, also I figured, I assumed that it were four armed guards on the ground floor in the reception area, uh, that would come out of the building just seconds after I had parked car, so I took into account the need to fight the four armed people. And that's why I wore armor when I arrived.

Holden: Did you do any research to confirm or disprove these assumptions?

Breivik: No, I did not.

Holden: Mhm. Was it part of the reason, this scenario where you thought, it was part of the reason for what you did in Modern Warfare? Was it sere you thought you such a scenario, you will be in a pincer movement?

Breivik: No, that is, you refer to a war simulation, that is, uh, a digital simulation is a tool to prepare for something that is real, and I have no opportunity to obtain the information that I needed, so I made an assumption.

Holden: What about support beams? Size of columns, the kind of thing - did you look for such things?

1:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Breivik: I think I looked at it at one time or another, uh, Thus, they, I had studied some so-called case studies in terms of operations in the past, including the World Trade Center bombing in 93 and Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building. And in addition to one, another, another attack in the Middle East, I can not remember how it was. Eh, it was those I had studied, and it is limited in what I able to reason my way to, I thought, it is not possible, I not essential to make a calculated analysis of it.

Holden: No, but looked for the girder?

Breivik: I did. But I concluded early enough that it would be human limitations that would be the decisive factor. Limitations lie in the human.

Holden: Did you do any assessment of the thickness of the girder?

Breivik: I may have. And it may well be. But I do not remember very well.

Holden: You are asked about it in interviews, and 826, defenders, on page 24, this is an interrogation that is dated 20 December. For that to provide opinion, I must take a small section which is also related, involving columns. Interview asks if he sees these columns. Accused says that it is a good question. Interview said that there is a significant question, because accused says that he has seen the width of them. It may be that he has rationalized their way to the bank of them, says the defendant. Interview said that it is difficult to say now, because the accused has said that he went past and saw the width of the columns. Interview said that the accused has said several times. Accused says that he has rationalized to some extent when he made the list of what he was looking for. Accused believes remember that in one or another angle, he saw a beam, and from memories He rationalized his way out of the thickness of them. It is possible that was not the outermost row, but maybe the second row. He said to remember where thick they were.

Breivik: I do not think you should put so much emphasis on it. what we concluded the conversation with, was that I concluded at some point just to try with a one-ton bomb, and it is perhaps 50 percent chance that parts of the building collapse. But it is very difficult to calculate. I had two reference points. One was WTC93, and the other was Oklahoma City.

Holden: You started by saying that you were on reconnaissance eight times. And then told you further that four of the times you stood at a distance by VG-built, Deichmann by Grubbegaten and look towards the government building. And then you said that four times as you went by, did not stop, threw a look at the building. Is this a thorough reconnaissance?

Breivik: In a large enough degree. That all depends. So, what is conclusion of what you are trying to work out now is that I concluded at one time or another, I can not remember when, that it will be ... I'm not qualified to make a blast analysis, namely explosives versus thickness of the columns that I'll have to just try and wait to see what happens. It is conclusion that we are talking about now.

Holden: as told in the place, that at one time or another were then Utøya chosen as targets. And probably in late June, and I emphasize what you said in interviews that you would have said it was in the period 30 June to 10 July. What was the reason why you chose Utøya as a goal?

Breivik: The reason was that it was the most attractive political target in Norway at the time that I was going to strike. Because it was the common knowledge that two-thirds of personnel in all buildings were on vacation, they were not present. And so it turned actually upside down in the entire planning process. And then there were alternative measures that may be considered. And it coincided with the fact that I had only managed to produce one bomb. And the fact that it was common holiday.
Very many other plans fell away. It was the best measure of the time.

Holden: What was it that was appealing to you when it came Utøya?

Breivik: Part of the reason I wanted it in the first place other goals, was because I knew that Utøya would be a very controversial goal even among militant nationalists. The impression I have today, that about half of militant nationalists in Europe think Utøya was unacceptable, while half support it.

Holden: What do you base this?

Breivik: And I know that if it was possible to select a better target. But it is very easy to criticize an attack when looking back on it. And there are of course many that will. Many sofa generals. Saying that, no, you should have attempted this Instead, include the Labour Party's headquarters instead, but then a Question: If I had attacked the Labour Party headquarters a car bomb number two, instead Utøya example, very many civilians would have died. For example, whole of the Norwegian Tourist Board and all the surrounding buildings. So

Holden: Yes, you mentioned earlier.

Breivik: Based on the situation I was in, Utøya was the most attractive political target in Norway. With the exception of the government quarter.

Holden: You used the 50-50 percent estimate for a day or two ago too. What you base this on, that half of the militant Nationalists do not ...

Breivik: It is the impression that I have been based on feedback.

Holden: What kind of feedback have you got then?

Breivik: Through, that is, I've had an overview of what is written on a forum of sympathizers of militant nationalism, and of militant nationalists.

Holden: Okay, so it is through the letters that people sent to you?

Breivik: This is where I got that impression, yes.

Holden: Okay. What was it about Utøya was attractive, then?

Breivik: It was that, well, it was a political goal. The aim of the Utøya, it was to attack it, the primary goal, one of the five days which Utøya was. The first day, it was probably on a Wednesday, when Martha Michelet was the speaker. The next day was to be Minister. Day after that again would be Gro Harlem Brundtland. And the last day would be prime minister.

Holden: Did you have any preferences as to which of these days You should attack?

Breivik: I looked at all the days that particularly attractive, because it was really, what to say, like the Norwegian militant nationalists consider that it was the so-called category A-traitors, all those days, maybe with the exception of Marte Michelet, who does not quite, as high up on list. But Gro Harlem Brundtland is perhaps the most attractive goal of the five candidates. At the time she was possibly even more attractive than Stoltenberg. Minister Brundtland at the time, I considered as the most attractive of the four goals. At the same time, the goal was, it was twofold. Firstly, do you want that I tell you about the thoughts around Utøya now?

Holden: Well, first of all now, so I thought, now you have told about what you termed as category A. That there was a person under each of the days in a particular group, perhaps with the exception of Michelet. What about the other who was there when they were attractive targets?

Breivik: The plan was that if you survived the first part of operation, which was in the government quarter, then one would go to Utøya. Getting over, to go after primary goal, which was, on the Friday, it was Gro Harlem Brundtland. The plan was to strike at the
government building at 10, the day so that i would be Utøya around 11

But I knew that Gro Harlem Brundtland was there. The plan was to take a camera, called a digital police scanner, which I was getting in advance, I had charged up to the day. I had originally plans to bring an i-phone, to send a movie to supporters, or yes, the internet, upload the movie on the internet. As was the execution of Gro Harlem Brundtland.

And the plan, I had a bayonet on my rifle, and I had with me a knife as well. And the plan was to decapitate Gro Harlem Brundtland, While it was filmed while I was reading a text and upload the movie. Then there was the plan to execute Eskil Pedersen, he was goal number two. The plan after that was to intimidate the rest of the AUF-ers by shooting people out there, and the main plan was to use water as a weapons of mass destruction.

So I calculated that people would simply drown. For I consider it very difficult, if you are in fear, to swim away from there. So the goal was not to kill 69 people at Utøya. The goal was to kill everyone. And the goal was not to shoot as many as possible, but
goal was to use firearms as a detonator, and use water as a weapons of mass destruction. The goal was to kill everyone.

Holden: If we take hold of what you said at first, it is to decapitate a person and broadcast it.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: How did you get the idea?

Breivik: It is a strategy that is taken from al-Qaeda. As they have had the tradition, very long time. And that militant Islamists have had a tradition for a long time. It is primarily a psychological weapon that after careful consideration I consider to be very effective. And as I want to help to implement as a, what can we say, a tradition among militant nationalists in Europe. For as I see fit, so have a great effect for al-Qaeda.

Holden: Have you made any preparations in terms of being able to carry out such an act?

Breivik: I had taken with a bayonet and a knife as well. I had taken, or it turned out, the camera that I should include, in some way it would have been discharged, but before that, I had been concluded that it would take too long to upload the movie before police arrived. So I do not think I would be able to upload up on the internet. But whatever the goal was to film everything, and then attempt to upload it, but I never got so far that I had bought an i-phone. So that part of the plan went, of simply human limitation. But the plan was to shoot it.

Holden: Had you taken any tools to secure the person that was beheaded?

Breivik: I had taken with plastic handcuffs. I had three pieces of those in the box that I took. And that would be used in the context.

Holden: Some would probably, or maybe not just some, many would probably might say that this is an exceptionally brutal way to kill someone.

Breivik: It is a very potent psychological weapon, yes. But people should not, it is important to point out that decapitation is a traditional European death penalty as practiced in France until 1960. And As in the past has been practiced in Norway, so it is not only taken from al-Qaeda, but it's actually a European tradition. But it was meant to be used as a very powerful psychological weapon.

Holden: So you say the fairly obvious here that the goal was to kill everyone was on the island, or that they would drown.

1:37 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.

Holden: According to your own categorization of criminals, which category fall those people in?

Breivik: All who have leadership positions in the Labor and Workers Youth are a key part of the Labour Party, all who have leadership positions in the Labour Party, I consider as category B traitors. And it means that 44 of the 65 individuals were not only members of the AUF, the were also leaders in the AUF. And many of those were active politicians who were nominated for city councils and were leaders or members of other boards in as well.

Holden: The fact you can now characterize these as category B, it is consistent with what you've done before?

Breivik: You know, the media have written that there were innocent children, until until I managed to find out for myself that 44 of those positions had of Labor, or AUF. And it was, yes, I found out a month ago.

Holden: No, because you realize that I seem to remember, that you have previously said that these persons fall under category C, and that you do not ...

Breivik: I do not think you should focus so very much on it.

Holden: No, but I can ask the question anyway. Do you characterized as the C-group before?

Breivik: It does not Norway, ... role, that is. That, Utøya ...

Holden: If I may only be allowed if only I may be allowed to interrupt you?

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: So that I can explain the question. The reason I makes it's because, according to your own categories A, B and C-offenders, so you do not have the mandate to execute category C-criminals.

Breivik: Why do you say that?

Holden: Yeah, or ... Have I misunderstood?

Breivik: It is described in the compendium, is that as far as possible, you should focus on the category to which you refer there, as far as possible. If not possible, then attacking the other possible attack. It is like saying that of course one should attack the government directly, the prime minister directly, but they are very good at building protection around themselves and have armed guards, so that attacks are made impossible from a single cell. And then the natural consequence is that you focus on others (not audible). And second, had it not been for the EU and Norway, PST, his campaign against explosives, that is more difficult to acquire explosives, including fertilizer, it would have been an action that was three car bombs. But what happens is that the Norwegian authorities make it impossible to obtain enough explosives. And for politically motivated violence, we are forced to move from operations based on the bombs, the guns-based actions. It is not something we have chosen, but we have to adapt ourselves, for we have no other possibilities, for you have deprived us the tools we prefer.

Holden: So, it is preferable to bomb?

Breivik: I'd prefer a bomb, yes. I had not preferred a firearms based action, for it is extremely difficult for an individual to implement it.

Holden: What do you think of that, what is difficult?

Breivik: You know, to do something like that happened at Utøya, goes against human nature. And to make yourself able to implement something like that, then you have to adapt yourself mentally very long, to at all have a chance to carry it out. You can train yourself to hammer out your emotions and build a contempt of death, even then it is very difficult to conduct a such action, which is contrary to human nature in many ways. It is easy to push a button and trigger a bomb. It is very, very difficult to implement something as barbaric as a firearm based operation. And it is certainly not a politically motivated violent activists want, but when their tools are deprived of you, or EU authorities and others, so we are left with that option. it is not we wanted

Holden: Are you pleased that you managed to implement it?

Breivik: I think it's terrible that you have to make such actions to get through a message. And if you want to see an overview of who is truly responsible, it is primarily the Norwegian press and European press that refuses us to express ourselves. In addition, the Labor itself, which has contributed to the situation we are in today in Norway and Europe.

Holden: It is possible that maybe someone will argue that the primary responsibility lies with you, Breivik?

Breivik: Responsibility for multiculturalism is with me?

Holden: No, but for the death of these people.

Breivik: Of course, that is, all responsibility lies with me.

Holden: On Utøya then said the following when you were interrogated there, on page ten, defender. "Most of those who were at camp today, is defined as category C. We do not really have a mandate to execute category C-traitors. "

Breivik: Mm.

Holden: Have you upgraded them later?

1:45 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.

Breivik: I based myself on the information I had read in the media as was that this was members only, and not the leaders of the AUF. But it has been shown later that as many as 44 of 65 had management positions in AUF.

Holden: You've now several times said that,

Breivik: Had it been the only members, it would have been category C-traitors, as you say yes, it is absolutely correct. Eh, yes.

Holden: You have repeatedly said that it is so difficult, for militant nationalists to acquire fertilizers and explosives. Was it?

Breivik: Yes, it was very difficult.
Holden: You came to not only down on Rena and bought it?

Breivik: Of course, however.

Holden: What was difficult to go down for Rena to buy it?

Breivik: My, that is, if you look at the operation as a whole, including capitalization phase, started in 2002.

Holden: Was it perhaps that you didn't have the money, not that it was difficult to buy?

Breivik: to be able to conduct a action then you have to have the money, and therefore, one could obtain money, and that is done by the work, or steal, and I chose to work and I used several years to get me enough money to write the compendium and funding the action.

Holden: So, so,

Breivik: So it all started basically in 2002, but (unclear).

Holden: Sorry to interrupt you again, Breivik, so it is your lack of access to capital that was the difficulty in relation to procure fertilizers.

Breivik: No, to acquire fertilizers it costs 30,000 dollars, that in itself is not so expensive, however.

Holden: So you said in the place that it was one of the barriers that were built up of the system that made you have to choose other targets.

Breivik: Well, I did a lot of research to find out how you made.

Holden: But now I want you to answer what I ask you about me.

Breivik: And it was unknown if it was possible to use fertilizer for explosives, in contrast, it was just simply that you failed to make a bomb from it. It would not detonate. I do not know who it is who has posted the information on the internet, maybe it's the sovereign nations, the United States or what time, but people did not think it will work. It was the forum post for forum post that said it will not detonate because the authorities in the EU has mixed with 15 percent lime. Therefore, it will not detonate. So many lived in it certain that they could not use fertilizer longer, because the only fertilizer to obtain is 2700 which is 85 percent ammonium nitrate as opposed to 3400 which is 98 percent. So that,

Holden: But Breivik. Was it difficult to obtain fertilizer. Was it placed any barriers that necessitated that you had to do what you did

Breivik: I was very unsure if it was going to detonate in the all. Because it had ...

Holden: Breivik was there any barriers?

Breivik: Of course. When EU authorities mixes out fertilizer with 15 percent lime so that it will not detonate.

Holden: But it worked the more. Is that the only thing we know, then it's that it worked.

Breivik: Yes, but I did not know it in advance. It was a theory based on very, very much research. As most other 
(Holden talk at Breivik, impossible to hear).

Breivik: You know, most militant nationalists in Europe did not know that, until 22 July, we thought that fertilizer could not be used because EU authorities, and Norwegian authorities have mixed with 15 percent lime.

Holden: You've said it a few times now, so we have heard.

Breivik: But the point is that militant nationalists prefer Of course, not firearms-based actions, but we are forced to because Norwegian and European authorities have denied us the opportunity to use explosives.

Holden: But Breivik Breivik.

Breivik: (Unclear) ... what we will do whatever

Holden: Breivik, you were deprived of the ability to use explosives?

Breivik: Obviously it has been shown that I was not.

Holden: Exactly.

Breivik: But I was not sure until it actually detonated.

Holden: After detonated, yes we can finish later, by the way. It is Well, strictly speaking, a little time left to break so I think,

Arntzen: We take a break twenty past three.

Holden: I have to admit Breivik, after what you just said it is It seemed a little odd to have to change the subject, but that there is now a time, we must leave Utøya until tomorrow. No, I have to admit that ...

Arntzen: It's okay, we can, if you want a break, so we can take a break to watch, we have much left of batch two.

Holden: Let's talk about the preparation phase, we will go on implementation. I think we come pretty close to Utøya before concludes.

Arntzen: Yes, also with the time that the others can examine. So that we can begin in blocks three in the morning, it is realistic.

Holden: I think probably, if we are not quite finished, I understand the defends that there are some questions to this section,

Lippestad: Yes, it is clear that here's a batch, we have some question, then, but for us it would be ideal to begin in morning with the questions so that they do not get it right at the end of the day.

Holden: I think probably,

Arntzen: Can we try it.

Holden: Contemporary seen so I think we are not so bad way with thought on Monday, that is.

Arntzen: Yes, when we take a fifteen minute break now, to two five.

2:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.

Arntzen: As we continue negotiations. Holden, I think time spent in the future. What I wonder is whether we should keep in a stretch, but stop just before the clock 16 Instead of taking a break Before the clock 16 We can see the little, keeping it slightly open, but it is certainly a possibility.

Holden: Yes. Then I have the signal in mind.

Arntzen: Yes.

Holden: Breivik. Before we move on, so I thought just taking up the thread at some point in relation to what we talked about before the break. And it is, do you have anything to attribute beyond what you have said to the theme?

Breivik: No, that is, no escaping the violence and are, therefore, is and should be the last option. And as I see it, I have tried, and many others in Europe and Norway, tried to make themselves heard. But Due to the Norwegian press, foreign press, so we are marginalized and censored, kept out of democracy. And then this is the result.

Holden: I have set up a point on the list that I have in front of me, as called preparation. For now you have told us that, at some different time, where I have the flag that might have a view that is different than yours, when it came time to take a decision to commit a violent reaction. But we have talked about.

And then we talked about target selection. And the bit about the background of government building, and a bit about the background of Utøya. And what I want to hear something about now, the various preparations. And I have not plan to use very long time on this, but can you tell us about equipment, what kind of reviews you did around that.

As you may recall, then, and the court probably remember, I told during the introductory lecture, that most acquisitions of this group, was made in April 2010 to March 2011. And then I showed the picture of what you had on you, among other things. What kind of reviews did you do about this topic?

Breivik: Let's see. So, basically, based on what kind of operation in question, then one might first have to ensure financing. It is the very first. And that was what I started with. The first years I spent on making money, had enough money, I wrote the compendium, so I secured the credit in case the funding would not be enough (¿).

2:15 p.m. to 2:20 p.m.

Breivik: Then I started e-mail collection phase to distribute the compendium when it was finished. After that I started armor procurement phase, which was really just to buy a bulletproof vest and bulletproof helmet, and equipment related to, Thus, the most comprehensive Norwegian word is perhaps just different armor parts.

And I spent maybe 80 to 90,000 on it alone. Then spent a few months on it. As I leave it up, so I divided up the planning operation in four phases. And after the end of each phase, so I wanted to get rid of absolutely all the evidence, so that I could start a new phase without fear that the equipment was found.

And when I finish getting all the armor, it was the helmet, bulletproof vest, a number of other armor pieces. A specially designed one, that I made. In addition to Caltrops and in addition to politiemblemer.

Holden: Caltrops, there is something not mentioned before ...

Breivik: The Norwegian then called the Spanish riders.

Holden: Not true, and it was the picture we showed during the introductory lecture.

Breivik: Right. What was the plan was to combine the police emblems The armor phase. So I went to Prague to finish it. No, it was actually for. I'm sorry. In each case, so I dug down a box of equipment at the Swedish border. I did well in July 2010, to remove everything from the evidence I had done until then. And when I removed the hard drive and then I could start a new acquisition phase went on weapons procurement phase.

Holden: So just to sum this up with armor. You acquired a some armor parts and at a time as you took and laid it all down a box, and what kind of case was it?

Breivik: It was a special case that can withstand very much, I bought from the United States, a (not audible). And that's the one pictured (not audible).

Holden: So you took to let the armor or armor parts into this, and dug it down?

Breivik: Yes. Right.

Holden: Where did you dig it, then?

Breivik: The Underground I, therefore, the starting point for finding a location, was that we wanted the most isolated location. Where there was no possibility that anyone could find it. When I came out to the north of Kongsvinger had the most isolated place in Norway. And it's a road called Rotnemovegen, and there is a detour, Thus, it is 200 meters from this road that I chose that location. And when I dug into the repository there.

When I had done it, so I started on weapons procurement phase, and then informed my friends and everyone I knew that I was on a book tour to Eastern Europe to distribute this compendium, then, that I then had not shown any of those I knew usually, friends and so on. I had only told part of it.

And, so when I said that I was going down on a book tour, when I actually went down to buy weapons. And when I had concluded that the best destination to acquire weapons, it was in Prague, capital. And the purpose of the trip was to buy a Kalashnikov, automatic rifles and grenades, shrapnel grenades, and other equipment, possibly Also, I spent quite a lot of time trying to acquire armor penetrating ammunition.

2:20 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Holden: What was the reason why you wanted that kind of ammunition?

Breivik: I also tried to get a flamethrower, and yes. I Rated I held up the opportunities at that time. But primary goal was of course to obtain weapons.

Holden: Yes, flamethrower, what is that?

Breivik: A flamethrower? There is probably nothing more descriptive words than that.

Holden: What is it ..

Breivik: It's pretty self explanatory.

Holden: What did you see for you to use something like this to?

Breivik: Well, a flamethrower, it's not a practical weapon, it is a psychological weapon. And like me, and others interpret the political motivated violence, so there is not, it does not go on killing as many as possible. It goes on to get through a message, and it is often the most effectively through when using psychological weapons. And flamethrower is a very potent psychological weapon. So I considered at one point trying to incorporate the weapon in an action.

Arntzen: Breivik, can you explain what that weapon is made up of?

Breivik: A flamethrower consists of a tank filled with flammable fluid. And it consists of, what to say, a pistol-like object that deploy this solution. And there is a small, what should say, a device which ignites the liquid after it then becomes distributed. Thus, when it leaves the gun. It is a flamethrower. But it proved impossible to obtain, so I focused on conventional weapons. And it turned out that Prague was not very suitable for buying arms as I thought.

Holden: Did you have any contacts in advance, or?

Breivik: No, I did not.

Holden: What were you doing then? Went to Prague and ...

Breivik: I went to Prague with two purposes. The first was to print out a variety of police logos, including the PST logo for the car, which I would attach a magnetic sensor, so that I could easily attach it to the car. So I created twelve pieces of these PST-logos, which was intended to secure the three vehicles. And it was, everything was based on the main strategy which was based on three car bombs. In addition, I printed out Police identification papers, which I had made in photoshop. I had made it all in Photoshop, based on some graphics that I found on net, and some I had designed completely on their own.

Holden: So the purpose was fulfilled with the trip, I realized?

Breivik: That is correct. But I was not able to procure weapons on the trip, and during that trip I decided that, given that I have no criminal history, so I can buy these weapons legally. And I shop at that time already a shotgun.

So it remained, then, was to buy a ... a rifle. Semi-automatic rifle and a pistol. But the starting point of the trip was that I really were to buy a Kalashnikov, that the caliber is 762 which is the same as 308 And I had already acquired a 308-rifle. For the that was a bit special about it is that it is possible to use 308-762 ammo in a rifle, but it is not possible to use 762 ammunition in a 308-rifle. So it was thought.

I had access to the ammunition already a Kalashnikov, and the idea was really that if I failed to get it in Prague, so I would try to buy it either in Copenhagen or Berlin. And if the I failed in some of the places, I would drive on to Balkans, and buy a Kalashnikov there.

Holden: How did you try to approach potential sellers?

Breivik: No, it might (not audible) so I contacted people which I thought might be helpful. Thus, people who looked criminal out or people I counted on to provide it. I went to a part where I considered that the probability was high that someone could assist with that. But it did not result in that I was able to obtaining a weapon contact. So I could not. And then I decided that I could continue, it would be an incentive in doing so had I probably made it. If the will had been there. Alternatively, I could have gone down to the Balkans. But I decided to acquire it legally, because I had the chance.

Holden: When it comes to the weapons you have subsequently acquired, Ruger and Glock. Can you talk a little about why it was precisely these two weapons?

Breivik: Thus, a primary weapon, as I see it, it's Of course, a rifle. Of all the weapons you can acquire in Norway, the Glock is the most obvious to a conventional combat weapons. Because it can be built up very easily, and it is very much available for purchase from foreign retailers, including high-capacity magazines. And that's basically that I chose it.

Holden: What about the Glock, then?

Breivik: Glock was essentially the same argument. It is possible to gain enhancement, particularly high-capacity magazines. And it is assumption that I chose glock. It was not possible to obtain it on some other brands.

Holden: A high-capacity magazine, what does that?

Breivik: Frequently magazines for the rifle was five, but they could put the high capacity magazine that allowed you to spend 30 shots. And to Glock it was the same number.

Holden: Was there anything ...

Breivik: Contra 17 which is common, then.

Holden: What was the reason why you considered it an advantage?

Breivik: It is of course an advantage if you are planning a action based on that you will have access to a lot of ammunition. If the planning, let's say an assassination, an execution of a person for example. Then there are the completely wasted of course. If I had wanted to take a person. If for example, I had decided to execute Stoltenberg, so I had probably done it. But I saw that, I would rather go for a completely different type of operation, than a person. And when I needed more ammunition.

Holden: I confirm that you talked about something that the primary goal was to scare people the water Utøya. Needed you so much ammunition?

Breivik: One must take into account that things don't always go as expected. So Theoretically, it would have gone with one shot. And I needed really only one cartridge. But there had been very stupid. One has to always take into account that your plans do not work. And you have to take height for the worst. And it is that you need a lot ammunition.

Holden: When it comes to the choice of ammunition. Can you tell us a little what you were thinking at that point? We have been through it a bit already.

Breivik: I have been told by some that I tried to get armor penetrating ammunition, in case I was exposed to a pincer movement or there were other, Delta or conventional police, who tried to kill me. And they had armor. So I tried obtaining any such ammunition that could penetrate armor to which is standard on the Norwegian police, but ...

Holden: Were you with it, or?

Breivik: No, I did not succeeded. I could not get armor-piercing ammunition. I probably would have done it, but it had demanded a lot of resources, so I laid it on the shelf. But in principle, when calculating how much equipment you will bring, so you must take into account of what is humanly possible to carry.


Breivik: (¿) and what is, in other words, if one uses military, ehm, parameters, it is 15 kg which is the maximum for a person to be combat capable, therefore, all the equipment you carry weigh less than 15 kg for you to be combat capable. If you take more, ehm, equipment with you than that, so it affects the combat capability yours. Eh, it's well known within the military. So the goal is that whatever you take with you is essential, you must let everything else be. And when it came Utøya, I had to make a choice: Should I go with armor or should I go with ammunition? And I thought that if there are armed people out there, and I'm going there without armor I would most likely be killed, but if I had put on my armor weighing 10 kg, maybe 20 pounds, so I did not have the capacity to carry ammunition. So I had to make a choice, so I decided to take the ammunition instead of armor. And then I thought that if there is any armed people here, So, I will be either killed - it was a trade-off. And in terms of that one had to choose, eh, away everything that was not essential, you must Of course, selecting ammunition that is lethal, eh, and when I chose, er, soft point bullets because it had the most, that is, basically as will be in it, uh, setting, as far as possible, shoot a shots at one person and that is enough, and when you go for a vital place - and it's head. And despite so I chose soft point ammunition because it is the most lethal ammunition.

Holden: Mhm. But how do you think it worked on Utøya?

Breivik: Can you specify the question?

Holden: Yes, the type of munitions - were you happy with the result?

Breivik: It's not about being happy, we are talking about achieving a goal.

Holden: Did you feel that you did it?

Breivik: I felt that I achieved the objective that I set. Thus, the starting point was that we would scare as many people as possible the water so you did not have to shoot as many, but it did not work for purpose, and (unclear) had to adapt.

Holden: For you, you said that what the purpose of the ammunition was that there should be sufficient with one shot - it was so understanding?

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: They killed was hit by at least 189 shots.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: And it was just so rough, roughly speaking, be clean in less than of three shots per deceased.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: How do you feel about that?

Breivik: The aim was to kill, and then shoots, up until it reaches the goal. And you shoot so many times until we can ascertain Although that goal has been achieved.

Holden: Mhm. Considered to other types of weapons than the ones you've been through now?

Breivik: What type of weapon then?

Holden: You have a picture of you in the compendium, we can record it. We then see what, you'll see what I think.

Breivik: Oh yes, of course. Eh, you're talking about biological munitions?

Holden: What are we looking for something here?

Breivik: There is a picture of a person in a chemical suit.

Holden: Who is the personen'a?

Breivik: That person is me.

Holden: What, what is ...?

Breivik: It was created as an illustration, which should be included in the compendium.

Holden: How did this picture in this condition? Can you talk a little bit like setting?

Breivik: The setting was that I took on me, a chemical suit and took a picture.

Holden: Mhm. And I see a way ... (Unclear)

(Breivik interrupts)

Breivik: The purpose of the illustration is selling frenzy to other militant nationalists, and it signals that we have opportunity, or we have the capacity, er, as it indicates.

Holden: We have the capacity to indicate - what, what kind of capacity is what you refer to.

Breivik: No, that is, the purpose is to sell into a militant, nationalist solution, a revolutionary solution to other militant nationalists who are not yet organized or associated with any identity - er, then the purpose of the illustration, er, that is it's a marketing purpose that promotes us. So it is to provide a signal that, uh, the picture drawn by the media, the far right, or militant nationalists, the fools who use clubs or stones. It will be very misleading. So, we try to add a foundation for a potent attack organization, and ...

Holden: Now you say "we are trying" to ...

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: ... or is this where a proposal from you?

Breivik: Yes, I can say that well, it was my idea to bring it, but now I talk all about what "we" want, but it is my suggestion, yes, that's right.

Holden: Did you buy anything, what shall we say, something unconventional, or bought you something unconventional ammunition? Or biological weapons?

Breivik: Ehm, with a view to planning an attack on the Labour Party congress, so, uh, I calculated that the most appropriate would be to possibly use biological munitions because it would be armed people there, and each shot had to be fatal. And in the connection so I bought 50 milliliters, uh, 99 percent pure nicotine from China, eh, and 0.11 milliliters equivalent to two drops, the apparently be fatal dose for a human being. So when, uh, weaponized...

Holden: What do you mean "weaponized"?

Breivik: Well, there is no Norwegian word for it, really. On English word is weaponized, but in Norwegian as the course it is. Ehm, it is the biological material when it, er, injected in a ball. Thus, the idea was to blunt ammunition, drill out some of the core and use as biological munitions, and then it becomes in principle a biological weapons. So it was the thought behind it.

Holden: Mhm. abandoned the idea?

Breivik: Yes, I abandoned that idea.

Holden: What was the reason?

Breivik: Uh, the reason was that 223 ammunition too, there is insufficient volume of the sphere itself that it is possible to drill out the core. It would be possible with 762-caliber and possibly 9-millimeter, but 223 is too small volume of the ball, but even if they had used 9 millimeter as it should only it had been irresponsible if you had a backup weapon, it can very easily clogs the course if one modifies the cartridge in any way. Therefore, it is only possible if you have a backup weapon simply and It was not for me.

Holden: If we go over to a third group of preparatory actions, er, bomb production.

Breivik: Yeah, mhm.

Holden: The first step which is probably the acquisition of Vålstua farm, you can tell a little about the process?

Breivik: Eh, it was probably the fall of 2010 where I started localization process of trying to find a farm, eh, and it showed out to be harder than I thought. I spent a long time on it and ...

Holden: What was it that was problematic?

Breivik: No, the problem was that the farms that lay there had small agricultural land so that the order of ammonium nitrate would not correspond with the agricultural area, thus risking that one the flag of, uh (cough), of Co. So it was essential that the amount of ammonium nitrate that you ordered, corresponded with a given number of acres. Therefore it would be a specific farm acquired, and in addition it had to be near Oslo, uh, but I managed to obtain a suitable farm in April, time.

Holden: Mhm. Can you tell us about the production process? This is something that is quite detailed about in your compendium. But if you can, what I want ... what I want is that you give us a more brief overview of how you did this.

Breivik: Mhm. In principle, such a bomb is made up of three parts, there is a primary charge, it is a secondary and a tertiary charge. Ehm. What I started making is picric acid, which is a secondary charge, and when You've made it, so you can continue, that synthesize it on, uh, simply by, uh, uh, increase the purity of it so that you get something called DDNP. And that is essentially the same explosive that NATO user, in bombs. Very stable material. There are ten times as stable as that Islamists tend to use, but the problem is that it is apparently extremely difficult to make it, so it is not so many who dare to take a chance on it. But I took that chance because I believed that the commonly used, it is far too volatile and it is extremely dangerous, so I tried to make DDNP even if it was that they Most who try to make it, they can not do it because it is that complicated process. So I was very worried about it. Eh, I started to make picric acid was, uh, then I made a few grams DDNP and so I did a test of the one that seemed to work. So it turned out that I had managed to make both chemicals, eh ...

Holden: The test you have set to be 12 June, just as it is listed.

Breivik: Yes. Mhm. When I had assured me that I had managed to create primary and secondary explosive, so I started with the tertiary explosive that is the fertilizer and the fertilizer type that you need is something called - I do not know about, how much you want me to tell, I ...

Holden: Take it a little, the ... (Unclear)

(Speaking in chorus)

Breivik: What you need is ...

Holden: ... admitting a problem and shut doors and such.

Breivik: Yes, what you need is ammonium nitrate, which is 2700-fertilizer. And It comes in 600-pound bags, uh, and it consists of prills. And it as Norwegian and European authorities have done is to soak every prill in a substance that allows it does not absorb water so that it is worthless for so-called terrorists. So what you must do for countering it is to crush the prills and so do you know how to use Blenders, miksmaster, and for my part, I put four miksmasters in a row, I experimented with many different steps, I bought twelve different brands, so I tested each one and so on who was most appropriate for the purpose, and when I found out that it was an Electrolux version that was optimal. So when I went to four different Elkjøp and bought twelve pieces of the brand, or certainly quite a few, and said I put four pieces in a row, and then I started to smash these prilled. And is very big problem, it is that as soon as they break, they begin to absorb water, so if you not immediately take it up in a bag, then it will be destroyed. So it was a difficult process but it, it was not very difficult, but it was very tiring. And at that point I had three tons of ammonium nitrate, so I had enough for three bombs. And then, when it was done, so I added fuel and put it in 50 pound bags. It was an inner bag and an outer bag, fertilizer bags, which I had ordered from China. When this mixture ANFO, ammonium nitrate and diesel were mixed up, so it was time to add substances that make ANFO mixture more volatile, which increases detonation of it, and when I blend a ¿(interrupted)

Arntzen: I just wonder how detailed it is necessary to go just at this point? So the problem you traveled.

Holden: Yeah, so far as is Breivik on to something other than I said in the introductory lecture, So on that level, it is enough okay. But would you like to go a step further. You blend into this, and ¿(Interrupted)

Breivik: Yes with micro balloons and aluminum powder.

Holden: After this, what did you do?

Breivik: When you have a much more potent mixture, increasing the explosive force, and that increases the possibility of detonation. Then it goes from the ANFO to ANALFO, as ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, micro balloons and diesel: And then you have the mix that I used. It was the tertiary charge. And it is not very volatile. So it's not just pop a fuse in it, then detonate it. You must have only a primary charge and DDNP, which triggers a secondary charge consisting of picric acid, which was 200 grams. DDNP-charge was ¿(interrupted)

Holden: programs do not we have to go into.

Breivik: It is the principle behind it.

Holden: Analnm it was something I mentioned earlier. I spoke no that there were there inside the barrel, is that correct? That you mixed ¿?

Breivik: Yeah, right, yes that is in the inner charge you referred to, I used nitro methane instead of diesel.

Holden: Exactly.

Breivik: Shall I tell how I ¿?

Holden: Oh no. I do not think I need to go into it. Then also defends record it, if desired at a later time. But what you might say something about is what we have been experiencing earlier, namely the time spent.

Breivik: You know, I expected to be completed within four weeks. They ingredients that you need to make picric acid ¿¿need to clean that is the need sulfuric acid in purified form, what you get is 30 percent form, so you need to simply do all this outside. And the problem that others can see you, and it is incredibly a lot of smoke, so you have to work on night, so you have lots of questions. It's a very complicated process. And it took three times longer than expected. And I estimated three to four weeks.

Holden: How long did it take?

Breivik: The plan was to be completed by the end of May. But I was not completed before 21 July.

Holden: I do not think I am asking more questions about the production of bomb, but goes over to a last little point about the preparation. And when I think about the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Can you tell us about it?

Breivik: What I have described in the compendium, it is really only a theory. But the theory was that if you ¿that is, in principle then it's not a theory that says ¿remove themselves, that if you use anabolic steroids, so you increase your performance drastically. If in the Additionally, the ECA stack, so you increase your performance even further.

Holden: ECA stack, what is that?

Breivik: ECA stack is a mixture of ephedrine, caffeine and aspirin in a specific amount. It was legal in Sweden until 2002. It is a performance-enhancing drug to thin your blood, and that the By doing that your heart takes up more oxygen. And so you get ¿ you will be much more tolerable. You ¿it is very strange performance. But there are a few drawbacks. And it only lasts for two hours after taking a dose, or up to four hours.

Holden: 22 July, or, taking it in advance, did you use any anabolic steroids ahead of the 22 July?

2:52 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Breivik: Yes, I started on it, if you want to call it a course, in end of april, because I figured, I would have to be completed by end of May. And what is common with so-called testosterone course, it is that it lasts for six weeks. One should not exceed the period of the is very stressful for your liver if you take it in pill form. And that was what I had available. So I started with that in the end of April, and I started with something called Dianabol, which is 50, 40 to 50 milligrams per day, so it will therefore say five tablets per day. As it turned out that I spent a lot longer, so the course became very long, and, uh, yeah, I went over to something called Winstrol, or stanozolol, which is a slightly different type of steroid. The are downside dianobol is that you get an accumulation of water in body that makes you a little bloated and you get a lot of unnecessary weight in the form of water that you do not need, but if you go over the Winstrol in the aftermath as the water flows out while maintaining the muscle mass that you have acquired. And on 22 July, when I went on Winstrol.

Holden: Trained something in parallel while ...?

Breivik: I had started training many, many months in advance and I had taken two courses of testosterone before I started on the last cure, so I had gradually built up muscle mass, and the muscle mass was very critical because I calculated with having to carry so many pounds so to so many hours on that day, so without the muscle mass I had to cut down on equipment right and delete. So it is essential to carry as much equipment as I carried the day.

Arntzen: Breivik, used anabolic steroids these late april until 22 July?

Breivik: Yeah, right.

Holden: And on 22 July, ECA stack, had you taken it?

Breivik: Yes, I had taken. I had taken it some days, maybe a week in advance to adapt the body to that effect.

Holden: What time of day was it you took it?

Breivik: I can not remember, it's possible I did it between the hours of eleven and two o'clock, I think.

Holden: So, we begin to approach 22 July. I told the introductory lecture that you ran my Craft coach or car bomb on you want to Oslo on 20 July.

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: And in that you had what you call the tertiary charge, or main charge.

Breivik: Yeah, right.

Holden: What, what happened next?

Breivik: Eh, when I had parked the car, I can not remember what the street name, Sigurd Iversen road? So I parked it, therefore it is if someone in the media who have indicated where I parked it, but it is not true, I parked it away from all buildings, so far, isolated as possible,

Holden: How far away from the apartment,

Breivik: This is where it is located, Olsen's widow, and the reason I can not, therefore it is a suitable place that I had spent some time on finding, it was probably the place in Skøyen that was at least, it was at least the traffic passing by.

Holden: What was the reason that you,

Breivik: I was very worried about too many transient, because it is chemicals that smell, which is a very strong smell, and you can smell it if you go by a car, so I had printed out, I had made one in fotshop a new logo that was Drain Cleaning Web Site or any another thing, which I placed in the window of the car so that if any made a very pungent odor, that they would in a way to find the laughing I would have. Eh, so it was parked there and then when I went back
to Rena next day, I stayed in Hoffsveien that day, I think I came down with the car quite late, around eleven, and so I went with Rena train to the next day at ten.

Holden: Did you have anything with you on the train?

Breivik: Yes, that is, in the bomb car as I had with Glock which was loaded.

Holden: What was the reason why you had with you loaded glock?

Breivik: It was that I had come to a situation that there was no way back. If I had been arrested because I had been convicted to 21 years in prison. And I had not planned to be taken alive. So if it was something that had happened, I had done everything possible not to be taken alive. So I had 17 shots, a magazine and Glock I had kept in a toilet bag, a Samsonite bag, so it time I decided that there is no turning back. In some manner. The next day I took the train to Rena. Was Rena quarter past one about. And having to make final preparations with the primary charge I then moved into the Doblo.

Holden: You know, the primary and secondary charge, too. The Doblo?

Breivik: Yes.

Holden: Down to Oslo?

3:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Breivik: Well, it took much longer than I thought to do the last preparations, so I did not get dragged before seven, eight.

Holden: And ...

Breivik: When I came to Oslo maybe like ten, eleven o'clock.

Holden: Yes, if I remember correctly, as well GPS watches half twelve? That I will soon post up here, though it was half past twelve or not. That I will soon post up here if it was half past twelve or not. But ...

Breivik: So I took also with PC, for that would I use to distribute the compendium. So I took the last equipment I needed from Rena.

Holden: So you stayed with your mother that night, too?

Breivik: Yes, that's right.

Holden: And what were you thinking when you let yourself that day?

Breivik: I did not think very much, because I was exhausted after Having worked all day. So I went to bed, fell asleep, did not think much of it. But then I woke up the next day, and I thought that today is the day that I am going to die. And then I thought that I am quite keen little to die really, but that is just. I was really nervous about the morning. The first thing I did was actually ...

Holden: If we just take a little break. When you stood up?

Breivik: I stood up so well for eight hours.

Holden: Was not the original plan to make the bombing of government building pretty early?

Breivik: Yes, that's right, but I was completely exhausted. And I thought I'm so tired that I can not accomplish. And I thought, I ... I do not remember when I went to bed, it's possible I allow myself later, but I thought in a way it's best if I am up all night and not sleeping. But then I would be so tired that I did not unable to carry out possibly, that I might crash the car on the road. So I decided to sleep, with the consequences it had.

Holden: Doblo was back, or parked at half past eleven ...

Breivik: Yes, but I think I had to do some preparations the overnight. And I thought that I really can not go to bed now, but I is so exhausted that I can not carry out if I did not sleep. So when I decided that I had to sleep.

Holden: So you stood up. What happened next?

Breivik: I do not remember exactly what I did in the beginning, it is I may ...

Holden: It's certainly activity on your computer this morning.

Breivik: Yes, the first thing I did was to install the PC, add up, install a new modem. And I started to upload the movie to two locations. I had big problems with it, which resulted in my lost some time. Once that was done, so I went, so I knew that when it was time to deploy the first car. And it was thus Doblo. So when I went in civilian clothes and went over to Doblo, placed the primary and secondary charge of the tertiary charge, and drove to the Doblo Hammersborg square. And then it was probably around the clock Twelve. And then I went past the government quarter and the reconnaissance of the first time or last time, I believe, and took a taxi to Hoff Road.

Holden: What kind of reconnaissance were you doing then?

Breivik: No, I was simply whether it was possible to run into the parking lot. And then I took a taxi to Hoff Road from ... from Square. And when I was at Skøyen maybe half one. And then remained last part, and it was the dispatch of the compendium. And then it took a lot of longer than I thought. I wrote the last update in compendium, I tried to remove part of the cover stories, including otherwise it with police uniforms and stuff, it was just a cover. It with Kautokeino was just a cover, which was supposed to mislead, if the compendium was uncovered. But it was one of those apparently not that I have not had time to remove. So I did the latest updates in compendium, and so I sent it off. And I had great problems sending, I got lots of error messages from Outlook and was in a situation where I was extremely frustrated because I could not implement the action before I had sent the compendium. So in the end as I noticed that a bulk e-mail addresses went through, so I decided that I just had to send off the other 13, or 12 dents, a total of 8000 e-mail addresses. And I had almost leave before I was done. So Outlook stood and worked while I went, and when destroyed on my plan that went on to destroy the hard drive before I went. I could not remove the hard disk as long as Outlook worked, but the plan was to destroy the hard drive as the police got it. But I had no choice, so I had to leave the machine. And then I went up to the Craft Maker, who stood in Sigurd Iversen way. The time was three, I think. And when I went in civilian clothes, the car, with a huge bag, I think. Or so I already had the equipment in the back of Craft coach. So I went into the craft behind the heater, modified, changed to police uniform and armor and went out again into the car and sat and began to run towards the government building. And then it was about time three. Do you want me to tell ...

Holden: Keep going.

Breivik: OK. So I came to Skøyen, so I saw that there was a police roadblock. It was apparently a trailer that had driven off, out of the road or something similar. So I was very afraid that they policemen would see me, for I had logos visible. Everyone could actually identify. The helmet was lying on the side. And then I came to square in front of the courthouse, and when I came to the first point where I was not allowed to drive anymore, it was prohibited from running private cars. And when I broke the ban and drove down to Grubbegaten. If there had been a police car there when they could run after me and stopped me. But I was prepared for it, but I hoped it would not happen.

Holden: How were you prepared for it?

Breivik: I was armed, and I had armor. And I did not going to let me stop. So I'd probably just run on. And if the they had run after me, so I had lit the fuse that much closer. In other words, I had tried to run around the back, open and detonate it while I was inside it to, that is, protect your car until it was detonated. If something Such happened. But it did not happen. And when we come to a point where you have shown the film that we saw a couple of days ago.

Holden: How did you experience the sequence here? What were you thinking?

Breivik: When you get to the point where you see the car stops, I think two minutes, when I stopped to mount the blue light. And I was supposed to put on the PST logos, at four locations around the car, it was the original plan. But then I decided to just put the blue light and drop the PST logos. And then I thought that I going to die in exactly two minutes. So I thought, yeah, yeah, I'm fucking little crush on it, but that's it. And at that point was then reflect my mind disconnected, so I acted very instinctively after that point. And that is why I have forgotten a lot for it the point. It is the cause of it. So when I run up to government quarter. So I see that the angle that I had planned to park, where it is not possible, for it is a car that is on the right page. And I had made a shaped charge.

Holden: Was there any car on the right side when you saw the movie?

Breivik: Yes, I think I saw it.

Holden: OK.

Breivik: I had made a shaped charge so that the pressure wave was theoretically be greater, if the car was parked in a special way. And the car that was parked there, destroyed that possibility. And, and the bomb were apparently much less severe because of the fact that I had park it from the wrong angle. But then I lit the fuse in there and I thought that now it comes out four armed people every moment. So I put on my helmet and was prepared to fight against them. So I looked around a bit when I came out, so I saw none. So I locked the car, and so I went away, which I had previously simulated. I believe that, I had probably not been able to do all that, if I had not trained very much so. I had been through that scenario perhaps twenty times at least. So I acted instinctively, and if I had not had the training, I had not been able to implement it.

Holden: What kind of training do you think of that?

Breivik: There are really only simulation, what to do when I park your car. The plan was actually to use the support vehicle that was parked behind along with the bomb inside the car. I would go into backplane, where there was a standing mini motorcycle that was cemented, I would drive from there to the other car. That was the plan. But Basically the plan was really three bomb cars, so I thought that basically it is not so very necessary now, I could have a bombebil. And then I can just go over to the Doblo, for it is only 200 meters. So I decided to drop the plan, and instead just go away. And then I went away.

Holden: The trip, how you remember it?

Breivik: I remember very little, because the brain was the reflection disconnected, and I acted instinctively in that period, so I remember very little.

Holden: Do you remember ...

Breivik: I remember I met a man. As I considered as a threat. And I thought that if he is a person who comes from the monitoring center, which will make this car. If he tries, to attack or hold me tight, I will shoot him. But it happened not. So I walked right past him.

Holden: And then you put yourself into the Doblo. What happened next?

Breivik: I have been told that it is said, when I came to Hammersborg Market ...

Holden: Just like for the record, I (not audible) that an car to the right of the entrance. So.

Breivik: I have been told that when I came to Hammersborg square, so I have met a woman with a stroller, which I asked to go down the street and away from the government quarter. And I have no direct memory of it.

3:15 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.

Breivik: It was in the stage of reflection brain was disconnected, but if I have said something, I said that it was possibly an exercise.

Holden: When you say that the reflection brain was disconnected, what, what does it mean?

Breivik: So, when, when this, this is the theory in psychiatry, but it is, there are many psychiatrists who believe that when you feel existentially threatened, it's the amygdala that takes over, ie a special part of the brain, and that makes you act instinctively. The That is, when you are in that mode so stop your brain reflection to function normally. There are many considerations you do not, including ethical and others, and then shop instinctively. And, when you, as long as you are in that mode there is a lot you do not remember, ehm, and based on the theory that I acted instinctively, and that is the reason that I do not remember very much yet I was in that mode.

Holden: What happened when you came to the car?

Breivik: Ehm, I went into the car and I checked if there were some who followed me, and it was not. And when I had set to P4 before, for I knew that they have news updates that break into programs. So I started to run, and so I drove down two blocks and then I noticed that there were two cases that fell down behind which created a very noisy, but then I realized then that it was not, therefore, they had fell down because of the pressure wave. And that's when all hell broke detonation and not the funds that collapsed. Uh, and so there was a Update on P4 after one or two minutes that stated that the had been a detonation at Youngstorget. And shortly after that came a new update that said it had been a detonation front government building, and somewhat later, after ten minutes maybe, then came a message that the entrance to the government quarter, ie, the been, uh, have collapsed, and it is certainly one that has died. And at that point I thought that now the operation is a failure because the building did not collapse or any of the rows of support columns ...

Holden: Mhm.

Breivik: ... had not collapsed, and when I saw the whole, the entire attack as a failure. And then I decided that it was necessary to conduct the entire operation.

Holden: If you had the radio on the way out to the developer, or?

Breivik: Yes, I had it.

Holden: Did you get any new updates along the way?

Breivik: Yes, I did it.

Holden: What kind of updates were det'a?

Breivik: The last I heard was allowed it was a car bomb that had gone off. And there was one expert who explained that this was a revenge attacks after Osama bin Laden had been killed. And it was a person who had died. It was so long it had been when I turned the radio. So I parked on a plot near nedkjørselen.

Holden: What did you do on the site?

Breivik: Eh, I had done research beforehand, and I knew that the ferry named Thorbjorn went every hour. Eh, I was there, er, about quarter past four, and that is to say, I thought at least that now I did not have the ferry so now I wait for five on five I running down to the pier, for I can not risk that I will in a situation where I have to wait down there on the pier in 40 minutes, then people will start, then people will see through it, the cover that I have, then.

Holden: What did you do in these scant 40 minutes that you were on the first place you parked?

Breivik: When I stood on the site, eh, so I changed gear. I took the bullet-proof vest and I took on a battle west rather than as I had pre-loaded with ammunition and other equipment. Ehm, it was primarily what I did.

Holden: Did you hear on the radio then, or?

Breivik: I actually do not think so, I'm not sure - maybe. I can not remember having done so.

Holden: We will put a line there Engh will take up the thread from there tomorrow, but you said you based on the messages you heard on the P4 regarded the operation as a failure.

Breivik: Mhm.

Holden: How do you act, or was considering the action in the aftermath?

Breivik: What I had decided in advance were allowed (cough) criteria for permitted it, the attack would be successful was allowed to At least the first row of building pillars to collapse - which would result in at least 12 fatalities. It was the minimum criterion for I saw the part of the attack as successful.

Holden: When it comes to the number of fatalities, 12, how did you come up to it?

Breivik: (Clears throat) So, what I have explained to the police is that I have reviewed, I have studied many attacks before, and I has considered media exposure based on the number of fatalities in different settings. Thus, the goal is never to kill as many as possible, but the goal is to attention around the issue you're fighting for. Eh, so the goal is to get attention to your case and unfortunately, such as community work, so I had not received very much attention if I had blown up mailbox to Big Mountain. Personally I would have wanted that it was enough to get attention perhaps the most important case in Europe, but unfortunately the case that media coverage is associated, ehm, shock effect of an attack.

3:22 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Holden: But this number 12, where does it come from?

Breivik: No, it's just an estimate I made, based on some reviews.

Holden: What thoughts do you have about this part action, today?

Breivik: What are you thinking then?

Holden: Yes, if NEGLIGENCE, the number who died, the number that were injured. Thus, it is not ... Thus, the way I look at 22 July, so is not it either about me or about the government building or Utøya. It's about the future of Norway and it's all about Europe future. That's how I relate to 22 July.

Holden: Is it a little bit about those who died and those who were injured and, or?

Breivik: For me it is about the future of Norway. And it's about Europe's future. And that includes our people's future and our culture future.

Holden: In relation to the government quarter, did you ever thought about the people who would die and be injured?

Breivik: The aim of the attack on government building ... Thus, I realized an attack in the joint would be quite different than an attack under a different setting. The goal was to kill the entire government, and including the prime minister. It was the primary goal of the attack on government quarter. I had calculated that the probability was greatest on Monday that it would be a Monday meeting of the government. I've never had verified it. It's just a theory that it was the best day to attack. And that with a big enough bomb, it would building collapse, and that under a best-case scenario would Government of Norway, including the Prime Minister die, and everyone in built ... for the building ... below what would have collapsed. However, as the first such action was postponed ... (Interrupted)

Holden: But employees in the building, it was a desirable goal?

Breivik: Well, the government building, that tower block is the most attractive political target in Norway. And it is well known both Among PST that it is the most interesting political objective of political motivated assailants. And that assessment is correct, for it is it. But you are talking about the employees?

Holden: Yes.

Breivik: You talk about what can justify the state secretaries and lawyers?

Holden: Yes, or random passers-by, security guards worked there, or other personnel.

Breivik: When the NATO bombing of Libya, or other goals, then calculates the having fewer than ten percent civilians. And there are also militant nationalist goals, to have as few as possible civilians as possible, preferably under ten percent. And that was my goal too.

Holden: But who is it that possesses characteristics among civilians people in this area?

Breivik: Civilian, it will be people who are not affiliated ministries. And then there were random passersby.

Holden: So all that is associated with a ministry, was a legitimate target, is it to understand?

Breivik: In the description that is in the compendium, they are considered different, as we have mentioned earlier. But all, in other words, the goal as a whole, is a legitimate target.

Holden: Who has decided that it is a legitimate target?

Breivik: In this context, it is my decision.

Holden: But it is contrary to the compendium?

Breivik: No, it does not. It is the most attractive desktop political target in Norway. There is not a goal in Norway that are more attractive. And the reason for it, it is that there are no stores in nearby, no cafes, hardly any civilians walking around. And there separates the target of militant nationalists in Europe and al-Qaeda itself. The goal of al-Qaeda is to kill as many innocent civilians, as they had put the car outside, Glassmagasinet or Oslo City. While the way I look at it, it's completely unacceptable to frame innocent civilians. It is only political activists who are acceptable.

Holden: But are employees of ministries necessarily political activists?

Breivik: They are attached to the Ministry, and it is not those primary goal. But it is a consequence of an attack against the primary target.

Holden: Then we, at least I made it this far I had thought. But I see that Engh is a follow up.

Engh: Yes, only two small things, Breivik. You have talked a lot about the civilians in today. Those who do not fall into the category of civilians, what are they?

Breivik: There are political activists.

Engh: Ok, so we have only two groups to deal with? It is civil or political activists?

Breivik: Well, as I have described it in the compendium, we have I categorized into three groups to explain, try to explain. And the way I see it, then the twelve category A-traitors in Norway. And It is 4500 Category B-traitors. All these are legitimate goals, so as I see it. Then there are approximately 90,000 category C traitors suitable as well in indirect measurements. All these go under the category of political activists.

Engh: Which group would I fall?

Breivik: You would not be on the list at all.

Engh: No, I am civil?

Breivik: Yes, you are. With political activists, I think journalists.

Engh: Entirely regardless of which party they vote?

Breivik: So, what I consider to be legitimate targets, it is journalists, academics and politicians who actively work for a multiculturalism. And I consider as legitimate targets. Anyone who does not fall into that category, I consider as civilians.

Engh: How can you determine which category they are in?

3:30 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.

Breivik: So, if you attack a political party, a congress of example, it's a gathering place for a certain type of person. If there is a nursery with children so it's a different type people, it's easy to make a difference between what is legitimate and what is not legitimate.

Engh: But thus it means that if you have a journalist who is far on the right side, there will be an enemy to you or?

Breivik: You know, 100 percent of all news agencies in Norway supports multiculturalism. There is not a journalist in Norway that is opponent of multiculturalism. This means that all these so-called journalists, they are not journalists, they are political activists. For that a journalist actually be able to call himself a journalist, so one he be objective. This means that he can not support the flag multiculturalism, or as mass immigration, but it does them. And therefore, they are political activists.

Engh: But you, that is one thing I noticed, and it was, you talked in place that at one time or another at 22 July, do you think you do not remember so well, because it was something you disconnect, now I do not remember verbatim what you said it was, what to disable in the head.

Breivik: Heh, no, that is.

Engh: It was a word that I do not quite understand.

Breivik: No, that is, what I mentioned there is a theory that many psychiatrists supports, and that theory includes what I explained earlier.

Engh: Yes, and as you said it happened when I was existentially threatened. And then I wonder, who you were threatened by 22 July?

Breivik: No, that is what happens if you are in a situation where you know that you will die in two minutes, so,

Engh: But who were you threatened by Breivik?

Breivik: I try to explain now how the brain works. I believe that everyone in my situation had ended up in a mode, a biological mode, where you are, where you shop instinktvis, yes, just you, it is impossible to train up to, to carry out a so-called suicide attacks, because you can simulate that much, but you can never simulate it, because you've never been in that situation before.

Engh: But this particular day

Breivik: So it's impossible to predict, and this here is something that is described in retrospect.

Engh: Ehm.

Breivik: I interpret it as supporting the theory that many psychiatrists supports.

Engh: Yes, now we have the many psychiatrists here so we can certainly hear the later,

Breivik: Yes.

Engh: but I just wonder, you say, because you remember very well, but then you say that just 22 July, it's something I do not remember because I felt existentially threatened. And then just I wonder, what is it that specifically threatens you this day? Which attacks you are exposed to, then?

Breivik: I think you have misunderstood me, because your body and your mind feels that it is existentially threatened. When I do not say some have threatened me, I say that your brain, that is what should be said then, Thus, trades for you unless you want it.

Engh: Mm

Breivik: And it's not on your own will;

Engh: Yes.

Breivik: It is a mode that you end up against your own will.

Engh: I understand, but who?

Breivik: And it happened to me and it happened to all that ended up in that mode.

Engh: But what, or who is it that threatens you that day?

Breivik: So there is something called fight or flight mode and it is the I've tried to explain to you what is,

Engh: Yes.

Breivik: You fall into that mode if your brain or your body feel existentially threatened, for example.

Engh: Yes, I have though. I have caught up. But how you're in that situation? For you say that you have to feel threatened before you get in that situation. And then I wonder. What is it that threatens you this day? Did you have the opportunity to say, you know what, no I drop it I, I go home. Were you able to, or was you threatened?

Breivik: No, that is the situation that I have described now, it has I just ended up in twice in their lifetime.

Engh: Yeah.

Breivik: And the one time I moved, I ended up in the situation 200 meters before the government building. And the second time it happened, it was on the pier, after I had taken the first shot at Utøya. Then I ended up in that mode again.

Engh: And what threatened you?

Breivik: I have not said that some have threatened me, but I have said that my brain feel like you are existentially threatened.

Engh: Your brain perceived it like that, that you were threatened?

Breivik: Yes, that's right.

Engh: Was it real?

Breivik: No, that now we are talking about how the brain works. You need to rather talk to psychiatrists about it.

Engh: Yes, I can hear.

Breivik: This is only a theory that has been described and that works logical because,

Engh: So this was your feeling that day, that's what you express for now, your feelings, how you felt that day?

Breivik: Uh, yes, among other things.

Engh: Yes, because we care about, how you felt, how to had it that day.

Breivik: Yes, we probably more into.

Engh: Yes, we can keep it. Okay then, none of my business.

Arntzen: Just a follow-up questions. This with the simulation. Can you explain what is it with the simulation, that you prepared yourself through simulation of the situation.

Breivik: The only thing, that you can never prepare you for a so-called suicide attack, but you can, you can, hammering away your fears through miscellaneous exercises. For my part, I have used something called bushido meditation to displace fear, and a side effect of the meditation is that it affects the whole emotion spectrum, so you remove emotions. It is a technique, if you practice it over a year or two, then you remove emotion, and you gain a contempt for death, and for my part, it's something that I depend on to for example, be able to conduct this trial. So I meditate daily.

Arntzen: Is this something you come back to later, or. How long, this theme by simulation, if this is something that you come back to the examination. Yes, it nodded. How long have you been up to the simulation with this meditation?

Breivik: I started in 2006 when I decided to do what I to do, so it, I have described is quite detailed in compendium. When I started in 2006 with it.

Arntzen: And this is a daily occurrence?

Breivik: In the beginning I did it every other day and last year I've probably done it every day.

Arntzen: And there is something you continue to date?

Breivik: Maybe not every day but maybe every other day.

Engh: How would it been if you did not? Would you sit here now?

Breivik: It's a good question. In other words.

Engh: Would you failed then, Breivik, if you had not done so.

Breivik: Maybe.

Engh: Why? What helps this simulation you?

Breivik: So firstly, if you normalize emotion spectrum, that is, that all emotions are normal. And then you more fear full, you become more emotional.

Engh: But you showed the emotion here when we showed the film. What was it did not work then?

Breivik: I think I just really had not prepared me for that movie. eh.

Engh: It came a little unexpectedly on you.

Breivik: Yes, simply I was not prepared for it. And it is In fact, the songs that I use in meditation.

Engh: And the song that was the movie?

Breivik: Yes, in fact, the meditation is based on that I simulates this video.

Engh: So go in and see for yourself the video in your head or what?

Breivik: Yes, well, it's basically a way, yes in principle. I look for me the video in your head.

Engh: But how does the video you?

Breivik: (Unclear) two songs primarily, one is Saga? and so it is Helene Bøksle "The world is crumbling."

Engh: Was it the one we heard?

Breivik: It is the last of them.

Engh: How does this help you?

Breivik: You know, I've experimented a lot with it, what works and what does not. What kind of music works and what kind of music that does not work. And I've tried everything from trance music for everything else. There are some specific songs that you can use it purpose. And so it goes on the individual. Something works for and some of other.

Engh: But how does it help you? What is it about the film and this music that makes you sit here now? What is there in this here as help?

Breivik: It is a type of meditation that allows you displace the fear yours. And it is a

Engh: But what about other emotions. Empathy?

Breivik: It affects the whole emotion spectrum. You de-emotionalize yourself.

Engh: But you think that if you did not have, that you had not Using this method, would you able to show empathy and compassion with others, then? Do you think that?

Breivik: So you are going to be a bit careful to say empathy and compassion for others, going to use that expression's quite objectively, now use it very subjective, it is not very compassionate towards others to deconstruct their own culture and its ethnic group. So this here is the an assessment based on what worldview you have. A humanist has a very different worldview than a another person. Now you'll get to be judge of worldviews.

Engh: No, you know, I just ask, but do you consider yourself an empathetic person?

Breivik: Yes, absolutely.

Engh: Mm.

Breivik: But I admit that I have through the meditation helped to make me emotionless, but there is a choice.

Engh: But how is your empathy is?

Breivik: Now we go into a very extensive discussion.

Engh: Yes, I just, we shall take it up again tomorrow?

Breivik: that perhaps we can record at a time when I'm a little ...

Engh: Do you think it is a difficult question?

Breivik: It's an important question, and it is important that we talk about it.

Engh: You'd rather not answer that now?

Breivik: There is such an important question that I think it's fair that you do not take it when I'm so tired as I am now.

Engh: Then we take it tomorrow.

Arntzen: As I understand that we are approaching the end, therefore, begin our day in the morning to give the word to the defenders to set questions.

Then the court adjourned.

» » » » [Breivik Report :: TV2.NO]

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]