5.11 Eleventh conversation with both experts on 22 September 2011
Like the last time, the experts meet the subject in a large room at Ila prison and detention center. The Norwegian Correctional Services have approved that the visit take place without the use of a glass wall between the subject and the experts. As in the first conversation, three conference table were placed between the experts and the subject and two prison officers were present during the conversation. The subject showed up in transportation belts, with his right hand free.
The conversation lasted for nearly three hours.
It is agreed that the conversation will be about the subject’s membership in the Masonic Lodge, further details about the organization which the subject denotes by the name of Knights Templar, and thoughts about his future situation. In addition the experts want to discuss information from the child care services with the subject, having obtained this through police documents. The subject was willing to do so.
The subject blinks more than usual with both eyes during the introduction to the conversation. He is asked why. I just had a shower, he says, and I feel dehydrated in the eyes. As in previous conversations, the subject has a rather glaring look during conversation.
About his involvement in the Masonic Lodge, the subject says that he was recommended to become a member there in 2002. The subject says that he arrived at the 3rd degree, approved for further promotions. He said that he would be in the 6th degree if he still had been active in the organization.
The subject says: The freemasons have adopted many temple knight rituals from the 11th century. It was good to be a member to participate in the rituals and get networks. The subject informs the experts that the Masonic order is an anti-Marxist order, only for men. Their principles coincide with many of our principles, he says. He also says: Knights Templar have inspired the Masonic lodge. We do not have access to the library. They have archives that we need, and the Masons are librarians for us.
The subject says that the Masonic lodge is apolitical, while the Knights Templar is a military organization. The experts ask who the subject now includes when he says we. The original twelve, says the subject. The experts ask if it is true that the twelve have met and agreed on what kind of relations they want with the Freemasonry.
No, this is my interpretation of it, says the subject. Both they and we are Zionist organizations. Haven’t met more than three others in the Knights Templar. The meeting was sectioned for security reasons.
The subject gives further details about the organization he refers to as Knights Templar. I was told to attend one of two meetings, he says. The experts ask how the meeting was summoned. It’s a secret, he says, so unfortunately, I cannot say anything about it. When asked how many people he was told that he was going to meet in London, he says I was told that they were eight, no I cannot quite remember. When ordaining oneself, one becomes Knight Chief Justice.
The experts ask if the meeting gave the subject the right to define the organization’s further goals and structure. No, that right has been distributed, he says, but in Norway I am Knight Chief Justice. The subject gets excited. The Knight Chief Justice in each country is sovereign. It is a great advantage as far as interpretation is concerned. The subject is asked how he knows that he is the Knight Chief Justice of Norway. It is determined by established rights, he says. And it depends on the operation. My right is surely established now.
The experts ask the subject to explain more fully how the organization Knights Templar is built up.
We were three plus me at the inaugural meeting in London in 2002, he says. We were all ordained there. The subject says that six did not show up. There were two French, two English, one from Serbia or Liberia, one from Sweden, one from the United States that did not come, one from the Netherlands, one from Norway, one from Greece, one from Spain and one from Belgium.
The subject says that it was verbally agreed at the meeting that the mandate of the organization was to be war crime tribunal judges, jury and executioners. A person who carries out a spectacular operation, becomes a commander I am therefore Knight Chief Justice now, after the operation on 22 July 2011.
The subject explains that he saw the ordination itself as tame. After the meeting, he got a document stack of 60 pages that he was to develop. The Primary concept is individual cells, he says. So it was after I started writing that the terms were clear. The subject explains that in principle, there mey be several Knight Chief Justices in each country. Each Knight Justice responds to a Knight Justice Master, he explains. Above all Knight Justice Master is a Knight Justice Grand Master.
The experts commente that it sounds like a terminology and an organizational structure similar to the one used in the Freemasonry. The Masons have copied us Templars and our organization, he says. The nomenclature is similar. The experts have a hard time understanding this, since the Freemasonry has had its nomenclature and organization since long before 2002.
There are historical explanations, says the subject.
The experts also wonder who currently occupy the positions of Knight Justice Master and Grand Master in the subject’s organization. There is no Master or Grand Master in Europe now, he says. It is because we are in phase I, the low-intensity civil war, now. When we get to phase II, the elections will be open.
The experts ask what kind of contact the subject has had with the others to establish consensus on the terminology within the organization. There has been little or no contact with the others after 2002, he says. He smiles and giggles. This terminology is a suggestion from my side.
He adds: But a successful operation in one country will establish rights in another, and now I have such rights in Norway and Europe. The experts ask if he thus has the right to define the content and structure of the organization. Yes, the subject says. My interpretation will be stressed, because now I have the power of definition as a consequence of the operation on 22 July 2011.
The subject says that the organization Knights Templar is both a military order and a martyr organization, in addition to being a military court, judge, jury and executioner. Everyone is willing to fight until death, he says. The 50-60 pages of documents I was given in 2002 contained the most part already, I have only made the facade.
The experts ask who has defined and identified by their names the ones that the subject refers to as A, B, C, and possibly D traitors in Norway. It is defined by me, says the subject. The names are put down by me.
The experts ask whether it is the case that the subject alone can decide who shall live and die in Norway. This is the main principle, he says. We have decided that we must act, and the right to do so is established. I do not pick out, I identify war criminals in Norway for their actions. Jens Stoltenberg, Jonas Gahr Støre are obvious, he says, but it can be difficult to identify others.
The experts ask how it feels to have such a responsibility. It is a huge responsibility, the subject says, in many ways oppressive.
The experts ask what will happen if his identification of targets is wrong. The subject says: In Beslan, 100 children were killed. Those who were behind it were condemned by other Islamists. But I have chosen to take that responsibility. Our organization identifies A, B and C traitors because of individual war crimes against our people. It will be hard to err, but some targets are more justified. Islamists focus on civilians, but we do not.
The subject is asked how he thinks his actions on 22 July 2011 will be judged by the Norwegian people. I know that after “nine eleven”, 40% supported the operation, he says. A low estimate would be that 15% support my operation, but they dare not say it out loud.
The experts ask if he would be surprised if he finds out that his actions will be condemned by all parts of the Norwegian society. I will be incredibly surprised if I have not figured it out correctly, he says, laughing. I still regard Utøya as a good target. But it will take several years and generations to find out for sure. I will still be responsible for both targets, but will be disappointed by lack of support.
The experts ask what could make the subject feel any guilt for the actions on 22 July 2011. The subject laughs. I did Norway a favour, he said. It is not possible to regret having killed just targets.
The experts ask again if there anything could make him regret his actions later. Perhaps if I were to be so demonized by the surroundings that I began to believe their lies, he says. If I were to be brainwashed.
The experts ask the subject whether he has thought about what made him develop the qualities that enabled him to perform such an act without regret or feeling guilty. I was radicalized by multiculturalists and Islam in Norway, he says. He is puzzled by the idea that any changes may have taken place in himself, or that his ability to empathize with others may have changed.
The difference between murders and executions is the legal aspect, he adds. What is savage is not necessarily wrong. During the operation, 68 political activists from the Labour Party were executed. The question of guilt is therefore completely hypothetical.
The experts ask again if he thinks that anything might have happened to him in recent years that makes him feel that guilt is irrelevant. My love for my people, my responsibility and my conscience are overdeveloped in me, he says. This is the answer.
The expert say it may seem that the subject’s empathy with the situation of others is impaired. No, it is not true, the subject says. My empathy level has been constant. It is love that condemned the traitors to death for war crimes and that makes me stand for everything.
The subject asks for help to draw a graph on a paper in which he explains how empathy level and radicalization relate to each other. The graph does not make sense, which after a while is also pointed out by the subject himself. He says instead: After the Second World War, I am unique, a pioneer in the European civil war. He laughs a little and smiles.
The experts ask why exactly he became unique. I can not look at ethnic cleansing, he says. My love, empathy and conscience are overdeveloped. The subject adds that the hatred towards Marxists, my background and personal qualities have also contributed. And then there are the historical events and personal experiences, as when I lost 100,000 kroner.
As examples of historical events the subject mentions: Tsar Nicholas II, Hitler and World War II.
The experts ask the subject to name some of his own weaknesses. I am too conscientious, he says. And maybe a little too wimpy. He adds that he may not have been disciplined enough.
The experts comment that these do not sound like real weaknesses. No, I lack nothing, I am a good alliance builder, I am interesting, have a good appearance and have no real shortcomings, he says. After a while, he says that he probably thinks someone might see him as arrogant and not so easy-going.
The experts ask for an explanation to this. I belong to the intellectual elite, he says, with qualities most people do not have. Then one is not so popular.
The subject adds on his own initiative that, despite the fact that he will give himself 6 points on a scale of appearance from 1 to 10, he knows he is unsuitable as a figurehead.
The experts ask for an explanation. It appears that at some point, the subject posted a picture of himself on a site where others would rank his appearance by using the aforementioned scale. I got 4.9, he says, and therefore do not exactly qualify for the term beautiful.
The subject sums up by saying that he has sacrificed everything and donated his assets worth five million to the struggle.
Asked to explain how he sees his own future, the subject begins by saying that he is unsure as to how he is regarded by fellow prisoners. I will fight with the pen from prison, he says. I want to use certain channels on the internet and twitter, and people will be interested in my opinions.
The subject is excited. The conservative league will be a revolutionary, conservative party, he says. We must await the right time window for a coup. I want to build networks in prison.
The subject thinks he will be in jail until the coup. It could happen in 2020, in 20 years or at the latest in 2083, he says. There may be talk about the junior officer in the military and an “Arian brotherhood” in prison.
The experts ask him to explain this further. I will use my qualities as an organization builder, he says, but must live with my fear of being killed. The subject says he does not intend to be violent again, neither if he gets out of prison.
The subject goes on to say: There is a 50% chance of a coup d’etat in France within 15 years. It may take longer time in Norway, but there is a 10-20% chance of a relatively imminent coup and seizure of power here.
The subject believes that he will be let out of prison when it comes to the coup d’etat in Norway. He estimates that he will then have a 2% chance to take part in the Guardian Council and a 0.5% chance of becoming the new regent in Norway. The experts ask the subject to elaborate. I work now with the party program of the conservatives league, he says. It is likely that in 2020 there will be an execution of the current Glücksburg family, and one of us in the conservative guardian council will be the new regent.
It appears that the subject has Norway’s current royal family in mind when he uses the term Glücksburg family. He says: Yes, it is Harald & co. We decide to execute the family, or another suggestion might be to send them into exile. The subject says it is likely that the Glücksburg family must be executed, since they do not dissociate themselves from multiculturalism.
The subject says he will take the name of Sigurd II the Crusader if he will be the new regent in Norway. He says: We will discuss what form of government we will go for. Getting a new king is likely.
The subject adds: The new regent may be one from the Guardian Council, or the one who has the greatest DNA similiarity to Harald Fairhair or Harald Hardråde. DNA samples must be taken for genetic analysis of everyone on the right side.
The experts ask how the subject will carry out his duties as a new regent, if it will be him. He laughs and smiles. I will take the name of Sigurd II the Crusader or Sigurd Magnusson Jorsalfar because he is my role model, he says. It’s a little unclear what function I will have. If it will be an active role, I will be responsible for deporting 300,000 Muslims from Norway.
It appears that the subject envision the deportation of Muslims, for example to North Africa and Turkey. He says: We will invade the ports and harbors to ensure deportation ports. The question is what the U.S. will do. We believe it may trigger a nuclear war.
The experts ask the subject to elaborate. Queen Isabella annexed areas of North Africa to get the Moors deported, this will be equivalent, to deport all who have to be deported. There may be many dead, but we would prefer to use cruise ships with military escort.
The experts ask what, if any, will be the criteria for deportation. Knights Templar has an assimilation list, he says. If you comply with the points, you will not be deported. But 90% would probably not approve of the claim relating to conversion to Christianity.
The subject says he is concerned that Russia or the United States may intervene in European affairs. The U.S. may go bankrupt, he says, and perhaps be split in two, a European and a multi-nationalist part. Someone there may intervene and try to invade Europe. If we have access to nuclear weapons, bombs will rain.
The subject adds: The United States will do everything to avoid that the countries in Europe fall. NATO will take action, and nationalist soldiers mobilize. The subject believes there is a real danger that it could trigger a new, third world war.
The experts ask the subject to estimate how likely this scenario is. The subject starts to calculate percentages of percentages, and says after a while: If I say I will be the new regent and there will be a new world war, you will think I’m crazy. He then gives up calculating percentages for this seizure of power.
The subject maintains it is likely that there will be a new regent in Norway in 2020, and that he possibly will be in the Guardian Council created when the royal family and Parliament are removed. He maintains that the new regent will be selected from the guardian council , or picked by DNA testing.
The experts finally ask the subject to comment on information they have obtained through police documents, regarding the subject’s care situation when he was little. I’ve never been in respite homes or foster homes, he says. He has not heard anything about the child welfare services assessing his care situation.
He knows that it was a legal process about the parental responsibility for him. He believes he may have been about two years at the time. XXXXXXX (the subject’s father and stepmother, experts’ note) were witnesses in the case, he says. XXXXXXXXX
The subject says he thinks it would have been better if the father and stepmother had won the case, so that he could have stayed with them.
The subject then starts a long argument regarding possible amendments to the laws regarding custody of children. My mother is not intellectually capable, he says. She is average, and against Islamization. But women do not understand notions of honour, and 90% are emotionally unstable. That’s why we support an amendment to the law, so that the father automatically gets custody, he says. The one governing the crib aso governs the world. This will reduce the divorce rate.
The experts ask the subject to explain further. I despise Marxism for my own parents’ divorce and for the matriarchy. Therefore, the role of women shall be in the home. The subject says he thinks that women may be encouraged to pursue a bachelor’s degree, but nothing more. They will not get a divorce and the father shall have custody.
The subject explains further that he will create a Norway as it was in the fifties. The families will stay in reservated areas. The divorce rate is to be reduced, the nuclear family upgraded, and the moral virtues to be reestablished.
The subject says that 95% will stay in the reserves. This will preserve Norwegian culture. Liberal zones will be created in three cities, where marijuana can be sold and prostitution may take place. There may be many who will stay in the liberal zones during their youth.
Oslo will be a liberal zone if it goes through, he says. The reserves will be in the outskirts, where people will live when they have children. The subject says he plans to write a new book, “Solutions for the future”, where everything will be further described. That will be book number two or three, he says.
The subject says that in the new book, he will explain the in vitro model, which he considers an important political tool for the future. We must reach 2% or preferably 3% birth rate, he says. Mass factories for births will be needed, using surrogate mothers from the third world.
The Norwegian indigenous populaton with the highest IQ and a Nordic look will be selected as donors. The subject says he may plan to become a donor himself. Maybe 5 children through this model, he says, but I would probably choose a donor with a better look.
The experts ask how the subject envisages providing eggs for this production. We need 15,000 births a year, he says. 50% of Norwegian women will donate eggs voluntarily, the rest must be obtained by force. Boarding schools will be created for the children after they are born.
The subject pauses a while to think.
50% is perhaps too high an estimate, he says. But no more than 1,000 women are needed to create 15,000 children, since each woman can make twelve to fifteen eggs a year. They can be obtained with economic compensation or by threats.
The subject says he sees several advantages to this system. It will obviously improve our ethnic Norwegian genetic “pool” he says. Insanity, cancer and arthritis are eradicated. We will DNA test and take blood samples of the women.
The experts ask whether the subject envisages that the system will be introduced if he will be the new regent in Norway. We will improve and save the country from ethnic cleansing on all levels, he says. Politics is time consuming, and improvements will be developed and be gradual.
The experts finish the conversation.
Present status by both experts on 22 September 2011
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness, and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically assessed to be in the normal range. The subject uses numerical values and percentages to a greater extent than is common in regular speech. He uses a technical, unemotional and not very dynamic language in the conversation.
He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite, and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, when related to issues concerning his own individual significance and/or his actions.
The subject has a light glaring look and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression, and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours the conversation lasts.
The subject is unable to take the victims’ or the community’s perspective in relation to the criminal acts. He maintains that it was fair that the victims were killed, he does not regret and feels no guilt.He believes that the victims died as a consequence of his love for the Norwegian people. The subject appears with a marked emotional flattening and severe empathy failure.
The subject uses unusual terms, e.g. low-intensity civil war, military order, military tribunal, executioner, and operation. The terminology used is entirely linked to the subject’s notion that there is a civil war going on in the country, and is considered as expressions of underlying, paranoid delusions.
Observanden uses unusual terms such as established rights, sovereign, power of definition, responsibility, love of the (my) people, unique, pioneer and new regent related to descriptions of his own position. The terminology used is considered as an expression of underlying, grandiose delusions.
The subject presents homemade words like Knight Chief Justice,
Knight Commander Chief Justice, Chief Justice Knight Master, and Chief Justice Grand Master. The terms are considered to be neologisms.
The subject believes that he by established right is the ideological leader of the organization Knights Templar, which has a mandate to be both a military order, martyr organization, military tribunal, judge, jury and executioner. He believes he has the responsibility of deciding who shall live and die in Norway. The responsibility is perceived as real, but burdensome. The phenomena are considered as grandiose delusions.
He believes that 15% of the population supports the criminal actions.He believes that his love is over-developed. He thinks he is a pioneer in a European civil war. He compares his situation to historic war heroes such as Tsar Nicholas and Queen Isabella.The phenomena are considered grandiose delusions.
The subject believes it is likely that he may become the new regent in Norway, named Sigurd II the Crusader, following an imminent coup and seizure of power. He believes he has given five million kroner to the struggle. He thinks he may one day be responsible for the deportation of several hundred thousand Muslims to ports in North Africa. The phenomena are considered grandiose delusions.
The subject believes that ethnic cleansing is going on in Norway, and that he lives with the fear of being killed. He believes that a nuclear third world war may be triggered as a result of the events he is a part of. He believes there is a civil war going on in the country. The subject is working on suggested solutions that will improve our ethnic Norwegian genetic pool, eradicate disease, and reduce the divorce rate.He envisions reserves, DNA testing, and factories for mass births. The ideas considered as part of a bizarre, paranoid delusional system.
Auditory hallucinations and possible influence phenomena cannot be confirmed, since the subject maintains that his forms of communication with like-minded persons are secret.
The subject appears to have an unclear identity feeling, as he switches between describing himself in the singular and plural.
In the conversation, the subject appears with comprehensive ideas about the killing of named individuals on a list, such as the Royal Family, the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. The ideas are considered as extensive, homicidal thoughts.
The experts have occasionally had difficulty in following the subject. In parts of the conversation, he is exhibiting a moderate association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.
The subject considers his own private and personal experiences of paramount importance to social issues and decisions. As an example of this, one mentions the subject’s understanding of how the court case regarding the care takeover when he was small justifies the need for introduction of patriarchy and restrictions on women’s involvement outside the home.
The subject appears without depressive thoughts in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness, or thoughts about his own death by suicide. He denies experiencing sadness, joylessness, reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is thus no evidence of a depressed mood.
The subject does not exhibit increased psychomotorical tempo, or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind or voice strain. He is “affect stable”. There is no evidence of lack of impulse control, neither verbally nor physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.
The subject appears without clinical suspicion of intoxication.The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.
5.12 Twelfth conversation with both experts on 2 November 2011
The experts meet the subject in one of the visitors’ rooms in Ila prison, Dept. G, where the subject was locked inside a small room with a glass wall.
The conversation lasted for about two hours.
The conversation took place because the subject had annouced via his lawyer that he did not want to contribute to carrying out the MRI, as requested by the experts. The experts respected this, but wanted to hear the subject’s reasons for refusing.In addition, the experts wanted a new, updated status. The conversation was announced.
The subject appears agreeable and smiling. As during previous conversations, he appears with somewhat staring eyes. He begins the conversation himself by saying he wondered whether the experts came to get more details, or whether they had forgotten something. The experts say no.
The subject is asked how he is doing in prison. He says: It was a transition from an active to a passive life. But now the combat morale is up at 35% again, and I guess that 50% is the highest possible value in prison.
The experts ask if this means that the subject has felt depressed or sad. He rejects this and explains: The scale applies to morale, not to sad feelings. I haven’t had that.
He also says that it has helped him to have access to computer games in his cell. He says that first he asked for a specific game, “Heroes of Might and Magic”, but this was rejected.He thinks this is because the game had a picture of a knight on the cover. The subject says he is now engaged in a game in which he builds up the infrastructure of a city. In addition, he has been given access to books about other countries that he finds interesting.
The experts ask the subject why he was not willing to take the MRI. It is an insult, the subject says, adding: It is insinuating for an ideological prisoner.It is like saying that all Islamists are brain damaged. I understand that it would be interesting, but no, this is an ideological matter, considering the Labour Party’s approach after the Second World War.
The experts ask whether the subject was afraid of certain things associated with an MRI. At first, the subjects says no, but then adds it can not be ruled out that someone analyzing the images might say that one can not conclude, for example.
The subject then says that he does not want the experts to take rejection personally, and adds: Maybe someone has given you a message. I think it is the government agency that sent you that has said this is to be done. I do not think you have taken this initiative.
The subject is asked to elaborate on who he thinks instructs the experts.You are nominated, I think. Those who asked you probably have opinions on this. Osama Bin Laden would never have been asked to do the MR. Nelson Mandela was a cell leader and terrorist. Everyone in the same situation as me would have been offended.
The subject continues: There is no precedent for doing an MRI of ideological prisoners. You’re obviously not used to working with the ideological prisoners. You legitimize the methods that Labor used after World War II. I wrote about this in the compendium. It is a familiar tactic to say that ideological prisoners are insane.
The experts ask the subject to comment on a part of his compendium, which describes how members of Knights Templar will receive their awards and decorations. The subject smiles for a long time. These are ideas from the U.S. armed forces, he says. It was not just my decision, but I was involved in designing the system.
The experts ask what the subject has thought out, and who has been responsible for the rest. I will not specifically say so, the subject says. But I have played a major role in the design. The subject says: We are not so strong that we trade our own factories yet. Therefore, we have temporarily adopted other people’s honors. We are a military order, and it is essential to define military achievements. It is an incentive for warriors.The experts commented that when reading in his compendium about this, it seems as if everything is the subject’ style, and his own words. The subjects smiles and his face slightly reddens. I take that as a huge compliment, he says.
The experts say: When reading the compendium, it almost seems that the Knights Templar is just you. The subject answers: It’s interesting, but it is not just me, unfortunately, it is a military order.
The subject then goes directly on to talk about Knights Templar’s inaugural meeting in London in 2002. His story coincides with what he previously told the experts on the same topic, and large parts of his statements are therefore not reported.
I was in shock after having been in Liberia, the subject says, and I could not think properly. If you knew what I knew. Will not reveal it to others. There are others who have committed crimes and who contributed to the operation.
The experts return to the compendium’s descriptions of honors and awards. The compendium contains a picture of the subject in uniform, with different awards. The subject is asked to assess how he thinks others will consider in the picture.
So you liked it! the subject says to the male expert. The male expert says that he refrains from assessing the subject’s compendium.
Others may see something provocative, says the subject. All the Marxists’ Fascist lights will flash. They will think: He is proud of the actions, rather than regretting them. They will understand that each award symbolizes the dead, which I have killed, and be offended.
The experts comment that another possibility is that the ones who see the image would think that the subject looks like he’s dressed up. The subject is entirely incapable of understanding this.Personally, I am very proud of each award, he says. It was a very complicated operation and the awards symbolize everything I’ve done.
The experts comment that the picture was taken before the subject had performed the criminal acts. I knew what operation I was going to perform, but on the picture I have two or three awards I do not deserve, he says. It is the “wounded in battle” medal in silver or bronze, and the “dead in battle cross” in gold.
The subject adds: The order is being established over the next 10 to 20 years, being the first steps towards a sophisticated resistance movement. It is a problem that if you die fighting in Phase I, you will probably fight and die alone and not have someone who can receive the medal and arrange with the tombstone. Islamists have good arrangements. We want to build something similar.
The experts ask the subject to comment on the parts he has included on farming in his compendium. I included it because I spent so much time trying to develop a “cover”, says the subject. It is essential, because you must have access to a cottage or farm, and I do not expect that farmers need to be instructed, but urban people. He continues: The compendium will prepare the individual for the journey to become a perfect knight.
The experts ask the subject if he could explain how he considers martyrdom. It is ideal, yes, he says. We try to glorify death.
The experts ask why the subject nevertheless decided to surrender alive after the criminal acts. When you manage to reach all the goals of an operation, you may do so. It is not expansionism, we will gain control over Europe. By surviving, we have control afterwards and avoid that the regime can construct cover operations to explain away the incident.
The experts ask the subject to elaborate. The regime would be the supplier og conditions, he says. They could have said that I was crazy and had escaped from Dikemark mental hospitat. Or said it was an Islamist operation.
The subject says that when he was Utøya, he actually had decided to continue until he died. I was still looking for the prime target, which was Gro, the AUF chairman and the other board members. But I found no more, he says, and had no more ammunition.I met Delta when I was on my way to the advanced ammunition base to put on the armor. It was a very traumatic experience and I was in shock.
The subject says he had expected to die, first by the government building and later at Utøya. Was not prepared to survive, he says.I was surprised and confused and did not know if I wanted to survive. Thought: Do I have an obligation to fight on, or have I done the job now?
The subject also says: I made several errors of military strategy. Could not neutralise the ferry staff. And I thought that capitulation would be difficult, so I might as well continue. And then I knew that in the case of XXXXX, the media covered up the truth, they are afraid to increase the recruitment. So I knew I had to cross a certain threshold to exceed the censorship-wall of the international media.
The subject continues: A large European operation was needed, and it was the Knights Templar Europe who acted on 22 July 2011, not Norway.
On his own initiative, the subject adds that to achieve the same, he has planned to detonate a “poor man’s A-bomb” next to 40,000 Marxists, for example in the Amelie procession or the 1st of May pricession. It would have caused more deaths. But I thought it was too much. He continues: We wore silk gloves here. Labor deserves a warning. If I had hit the 1st of May procession, the whole elite would have died.
About his thoughts on what awaits him during the trial against him, the subject says: It was decided in advance that it is acceptable to give a speech at the trial. They are found in the compendium. Search in part Il - “Trial speech”. It is a generic speech. I do not expect to get fair treatment, he says. Neither of you. You do whatever is expected from you, causing an ugly character assassination.
The experts ask if the subject believes that the experts make an independent assessment of him. No, he says. You would have faced resistance, your careers would be over, for you are dependent and have direct interests in the current regime. D traitors, nomenclature, you are trapped and can not say what you really think. So it would have been better with a psychiatrist from Japan or South Korea.
The subject thinks that the experts will fit their conclusion to what is politically correct. It would be irrational of you to become martyrs. A limited framework binds you, and you would meet resustance if you gave a modified personal characterization. For I think that yoy find me sane.
The subject says: What if you had said: He is indeed a hero! You would become martyrs. No one in the system would dare to sympathize with you, and you would be left alone. There is no reason to believe that you will report the truth here.
The experts then briefly inform the subject about the work ahead in the case and the conversation ended.
Present status by both experts on 2 November 2011
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness, and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically assessed to be in the normal range. The subject uses numerical values and percentages to a greater extent than is common in regular speech. He uses a technical, unemotional and not very dynamic language in the conversation.
He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, when related to issues concerning his own individual significance and/or his actions.
The subject has a light glaring look and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression and a somewhat rigid body language, as he moves very little in the chair during the hours of conversation.
The subject is unable to take the community perspective of how he will be considered by the outside world.He maintains that he is proud of the criminal actions. The subject appears with an emotional flattening and severe empathy failure.
The subject uses unusual terms, exemplified by military order, military achievements, warriors, awards, resistance movement, “cover” operation, cover-up operation, advanced ammunition base, military strategic mistakes, and capitulation. The terminology used is entirely linked to the subject’s notion that there is a civil war going on in the country and is considered as expressions of underlying, paranoid delusions.
The subject uses words like ideological prisoner, “trial speech”, and perfect knight to describe his own position. The terminology used is considered as an expression of underlying, grandiose delusions.
As previously, the subject presents ideas about his own supremacy as regards his own abilities, his written work and its supreme importance in what he perceives as an ongoing civil war in Norway. He compares his own person with opposition leaders such as Osama Bin Ladder and Nelson Mandela and believes that he represened the European resistance movement when carrying out the criminal actions on 22 July 2011. The ideas are considered to be grandiose delusions of psychotic quality.
The subject thinks it is likely that the experts and the current regime in Norway will deliberately manipulate and present him erroneously in the upcoming trial against him. The ideas are considered as paranoid delusions.
Auditory hallucinations and possible influence phenomena cannot be confirmed, since the subject maintains that his forms of communication with like-minded persons are secret.
The subject appears to have an unclear identity feeling, as he switches between describing himself in the singular and plural.
The subject says he has had thoughts about setting off a bomb in the 1st of May procession or a political demonstration in Norway, and by doing this to kill the power elite and up to 40,000 people. The ideas are considered as extensive, homicidal thoughts.
The experts have sometimes had difficulty in following the subject. In parts of the conversation, he is exhibiting a moderate association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.
The subject appears without depressive thoughts in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness, or thoughts about his own death by suicide. He denies experiencing sadness, joylessness, reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is thus no evidence of a depressed mood.
The subject does not exhibit increased psychomotorical tempo or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind or voice strain. He is “affect stable”. There is no evidence of lack of impulse control, neither verbally nor physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.
The subject appears without clinical suspicion of intoxication.The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.
