Just check the blog out if you wanna know, what this blog is about. Follow or not, your choice! :)
My email-address, if Supporters wanna contact me: email@example.com (notice that I've gotten lots of mail, it takes some time to reply to everyone. And yeah, I will reply to everyone back!)
WARNING!!! Mostly publishing text chapter by chapter from 2083 - A European Declaration of Indepence manifest, so it would be easier to read it for some people. Please, read it with a thought. And when you have done it, share this to your friends.
Cheers, fellow crusaders!!
The defence team for mass killer Anders Behring Breivik are arguing he should be considered sane in their closing arguments at the trial in Norway.
Breivik admits he killed 77 people and injured 242 on 22 July of last year. He is also due to address the court on the last scheduled day of the trial.
The prosecution has called for him to be considered insane.
Breivik’s main lawyer, Geir Lippestad, told the court in Oslo his client did not dispute the charges against him.
But he argued Breivik was of “sound mind” and should not be placed in psychiatric care.
Several people injured or bereaved by Breivik are due to address the court before Breivik.
A support group for his victims is reported to be planning to walk out of the courtroom when Breivik speaks.
Breivik bombed government buildings in Oslo before shooting young Labour Party supporters at a camp on the island of Utoeya.
He sought to justify his attacks by saying they were necessary to stop the “Islamisation” of Norway, an argument outlined by his defence on Friday.
Memorials to Breivik’s victims will be built at the two attack sites, the government announced on Friday.
It was, Mr Lippestad stressed, for the court to decide whether his client had been sane at the time of the attacks.
Breivik’s actions were “based on extremism”, not psychotic delusions or an uncontrollable urge to violence, he argued.
The fact that “safe, little Norway would be hit by such a terror attack is almost impossible to understand”, the lawyer said.
This, he suggested, could explain in part why psychiatric experts had reached different conclusions about Breivik’s mental state.
He described his client as an ordinary young man with good friends and colleagues. How, he asked, would a man who was mentally ill have been allowed to join a shooting club?
Nothing in Breivik’s life up until the “inferno of violence” on 22 July had indicated he was a violent person, the lawyer argued.
Had violence, not politics, been his main driving force, he could have gone to an Oslo shopping mall, Mr Lippestad said.
As the lawyer spoke, Breivik sat calmly with his eyes closed, occasionally sipping water.
Directly behind him sat several of those he had tried to kill on Utoeya while others were elsewhere in the courtroom, the BBC’s Lars Bevanger reports from the trial.
On Thursday, prosecutor Svein Holden said there were still doubts about Breivik’s insanity so he should be placed in “compulsory psychiatric care”, not sent to prison.
It was worse, he argued, to sentence a psychotic person to prison than to place a non-psychotic person in psychiatric care.
Trond Blattmann, leader of the 22 July Support Group, told Reuters news agency: “For me the most important thing is that he [Breivik] is not going to be in Norwegian society anymore.”
I attended a birthday party in Oscarsgate, Oslo. We were attending a birthday party organised by a good friend of Axels’ girlfriend, Synne. I noticed the woman who celebrated her birthday was working as a judge. A majority of the people at the party where jurists - judges and lawyers in the public sector. I chatted with most of the people at the party. It really struck me how incredibly politically correct everyone were, as if they were all members of the Norwegian Labour Party. I have never before experienced a group of people who are completely freaked out about discussing political issues relating to multiculturalism and Islamisation. I noticed a majority of these people were Labour Party sympathisers. I guess they don’t really have a choice considering the fact that they are all climbing the public sector hierarchy. A thought occurred. The judges during WW2 who had party affiliations with the NS or any affiliation with the SS were prosecuted and imprisoned. Is it therefore only fair that judges of high rank with party affiliations to the Labour Party and the other parties who support multiculturalism (and therefore Islamisation) is to be considered category B or C traitors? They obviously have a considerable responsibility and should be considered traitors of their people. I would imagine most of them would be considered category C though as their influence is considerably less prevalent than that of any parliamentarian, editor/journalist or university professor/lecturer. In any case, nice people though and we had a good time. If only they had any idea that one of their guests was a Justiciar Knight of an organisation affiliated with the Norwegian and European Resistance Movement, I would be thrown out immediately most likely. It is completely understandable as their careers would be over if they had any affiliation with such organisations or individuals.