Breivik Unchanged, Seeks Parole

 

Now age 42, Anders Behring Breivik seeks release from prison after serving half of his 21-year sentence. He spends his days in a three-room cell, playing video games, exercising, watching TV, and taking university-level courses in mathematics and business.

A prosecutor in Norway said on 20 January (2022) that Breivik is "a very dangerous man" and therefore a poor candidate for release after 10 years in prison, as Norwegian law permits.

On the final day of a three-day parole hearing, prosecutor Hulda Karlsdottir said in her closing argument that Anders Behring Breivik "has not shown any genuine remorse in court" and his behavior there is part of a "PR stunt."

"In the clear view of the prosecution, Breivik's request for parole should not be granted," Karlsdottir said.

Breivik is being treated leniently though his sprees of violence remain unprecedented in Norway. He killed eight in an Oslo bombing in 2011, and then stalked and gunned down 69 people, mostly teens, at a political summer camp on the island of Utoya.

During a three-day parole hearing this week, Breivik renounced violence, but also flashed a Nazi salute and espoused white supremacy, echoing ideas in a manifesto he released at the time of his killing spree. The outburst was familiar to Norwegians who had watched him deliver rambling diatribes during his partially televised criminal trial.

A psychiatrist who has observed Breivik since 2012 testified Wednesday that he can't be trusted. A prison official told the judges hearing the parole request "there is an imminent danger" that, if released, Breivik would again commit serious crimes.

Breivik is a mentally ill person who believes he has done nothing wrong and doubtless would continue his acts of terror against perceived enemies. He lives by his own Nietzschean logic.

Breivik once said, "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

Related reading: Breivik is a Darwinian Terrorist; Norway's Mass Murderer Tests Limits of Lenient Justice System

Suspicions of Royal Euthanasia

Queen Maud

One of the sensational claims made in a new book about Norway's monarchs during World War II, King Haakon VII and Queen Maud is that the Queen may have been involuntarily euthanased. Norwegian author Tor Bomann-Larsen writes in his book "Æresordet" (Word of Honour) that "Queen Maud had left home strong and healthy and would return in a coffin, without Norwegian doctors having had any connections to what happened."

The evidence for this startling claim is largely circumstantial. Maud was English, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. It was reported that she died of heart failure in 1938 in England, under the care of the most eminent and respected physician of the day, Lord Bertrand Dawson.

However Bormann-Larsen has unearthed documents which suggest that the real cause of death had been cancer. Dawson wrote to his Norwegian counterpart: "When reading this account, you will agree that the Queen's sudden death was a relief and which saved her from these last painful stages of the disease both you and I know only too well."

In the light of Dawson's personal history, these words take on a sinister, if ultimately unverifiable, significance. For he was not only a strong advocate of euthanasia, but two years before he had euthanased the King of England.

This only came to light 50 years later when Dawson's personal papers were opened. On the day of the death of George V he wrote in his diary: "I therefore decided to determine the end and injected (myself) morphia gr.3/4 and shortly afterwards cocaine gr. 1 into the distended jugular vein."

Why? It appears that the King's death was imminent. However, if he had lingered on for a few more hours, the news would have appeared first in London's sleazy tabloids. Dawson felt that it was more fitting that the death of a sovereign be announced in The Times, the British paper of record. An early death also enabled him to return to his busy practice in London. "There is no reason to think that King George V was the only patient he treated in this way," wrote J.H.R. Ramsay in the BMJ. Why not Norway's queen?

Neither Buckingham Palace nor the Royal Court in Oslo has commented on the allegations. ~ The Foreigner, Nov 4; Dagbladet, Oct 31