MASS killer Anders Breivik.


MASS killer Anders Breivik the twisted gun nut, has revealed that he wanted to kill many more than the 69 people who died on the island and that he had planned to capture and decapitate a former Norwegian Prime Minister.

The court heard how he had practiced using the computer game Call of Duty.

The nut also claims to be part of a group called Knights Templar.

The question I would like to ask, why give this guy a public trial? I know many are going to jump on the open justice and freedom and liberty bus with this one but why?

He was caught and confessed and it’s a 100% certainty that he planned and executed these crimes why give him the access to television and a public presence where he can spout his clearly insane views.

This case would have been better to have taken place behind closed doors and the minutes released. You can see him reveling in the infamy; he has openly giving the court the Nazi salute and continues making inflammatory statements. All the time looking as well quaffed as any Hollywood star.


The Breivik Bluff


Breivik trial ends as killer demands his acquittal

Anders Breivik and the problem of political trials


8 thoughts on “MASS killer Anders Breivik.

  1. Aye but we are Christian. They are good points and salient. However the danger lurks in secret trials, the danger that they become the norm.

    This trial shows several things. He is a lone wolf extremist. He is deluded. He is an example of what the system has produced. The western world has produced this monster, and others who are presently in uniform. He is a result of socialism and its sick values. A casualty of mass delusion that thrives on blame of others, albeit in the guise of multi culti “tolerance”.

    That really is what we have become. So let him have his time, it will make many question evil and where it comes from, but secret trials? No, that route leads to The Gulag and worse. At least this way we maintain a sense of functioning law and civilisation.

  2. @Cromwellsheart: I agree, secret trials is the wrong way to go, and even though it is a public trial the norwegian media has shown exceptional restraint, going out of its way to avoid anything that might harm the victims or give Breivik a public platform.

    Though I have to say I disagree with your “a result of socialism and its sick values” conclusion. It has its issues, but considering that this is the first major “attack” Norway has had since WWII I don’t think you can blame socialism… Unless you accept that the hyper-capitalism/corporationism of the US is responsible for John Walker Lindh & Timothy McVeigh. If socialism was the sole reason or leading reason for this there should have been far more acts like these committed in Scandinavia.

    • Nomad, thanks for the response. I may not have been clear enough. Yes I put the blame firmly in the corporatist / socialist camp, for to me they are one and the same. I see both as evils that feed off decency. Both enslave, both enforce controlled thought and actions by their very existence and modus operandi.
      My view is not shared by everybody I know, and yes you will always have citizens who disfunction.

      Do not forget Scandinavia as a whole has tight gun control, as does the rest of Europe. Extremism is also easier to spot in small populations. My views are small government based on liberty and freedom mean an individual is far less inclined to commit terrorist acts.
      Sometimes dominant social themes exist to keep populations in fear. This has not been the case in Norway until now, a relatively stable society unhindered by membership of the EUSSR.

      This sad, sad case reflects one thing. Within a society where firearms are regarded as normal, Breivik would probably have been shot by another citizen. The dignity of the Norwegians has to be praised. However I will always hold the view that the root of the wests ills lie within Marxist philosophy and practice.

  3. Secret trials are a no-no, but there is a difference between an open trial, and the media-propelled one happening now. The information should be available for those who want it, but there are dubious morals in having it pushed in our faces all the while (as I said in my entry).

  4. you both have excellent points, I think the press have a responsibility in what they report.They need to think of the harm in the showing of a certain image or writing of certain comments.The courts can go about their business as usual and the press can govern what is appropriate, remember the press are public businesses and they only survive from the fact people purchase their product so we really can censor ourselves by boycotting the news we don’t agree with.
    We see a rise in alternative forms of media these days so i have the feeling that this is already taking place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s