Blog Archives
Check out Fjordman’s Review of ‘The Uniqueness of Western Civilization’
John R. Houk
© May 13, 2013
Fjordman produces a favorable book review of Ricardo Duchesne’s historical tome “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization”. I checked out the price and it is a bit spendy on Amazon. I found it amazing Duchesne’s book is $268.60 in paperback and less in hardback at $133.97 to as much as $366.79 through online vendor Amazon. Even the $133 price tag is a bit much for me. I think I might have gone as high $60 with the Fjordman book review. O well, as Doris Day used to sing – Que Sera Sera. I’ll keep looking and eventually I’ll find a used version that is more in my price range.
Let me leave you with one thought that I think I gleaned from Fjordman’s book review. Western Civilization is unique because the culture bred individuals that had the wander lust to discover what is over the unknown horizon. This unknown horizon is more than just exploration for new lands but also the exploration of new concepts because someone had the audacity to think outside the well accepted box to find something that brought innovation to humanity.
JRH 5/13/13
Countering the Smear against Fjordman
John R. Houk
© May 10, 2013
Unless you are following many of my writing heroes correctly labeled Counterjihadists you may not have heard of the person that goes by the pseudonym Fjordman. During the attack the massacre that occurred at the hands of Anders Behring Breivik that occurred in Norway Fjordman had successfully managed to keep his anonymity.
Breivik slaughtered 77 men, women and children as well as wounding hundreds of more on July 22, 2011. Breivik’s demented reasoning was something akin to thinking that went like this: Start social chaos by violence then the native Europeans would rise up to change the European social order which in turn lead to the expulsion of Muslims out of Europe and perhaps eventually a confrontation against Muslim lands. That is probably unjust summary of Breivik’s intentions, but you can read for yourself in his Internet released Manifesto.
Counterjihad writers were beginning to gain a voice even in Left slanted Europe. People were willing to stand up and risk prosecution by being accused of hate-speech for criticizing or exposing the darker side of Islam. There is only conditional Free Speech in Europe as defined by Multicultural sentiments even if that Multiculturalism leads to cultural suicide. Then Breivik comes and slaughters people and his Manifesto shows that his inspiration comes from Counterjihad writers including Fjordman.
Breivik is Norwegian. Fjordman is Norwegian. The Left oriented Norwegian government began to investigate Fjordman as the master planner of Breivik’s massacre. Of course the Norwegian authorities could not prove Fjordman had anything to do with massacre because the notion was a load crap.
Now the propaganda campaign has begun. As is typical of Leftists governments (Norway and EU) a smear campaign of lies and misinformation against Counterjihad writers because they rock the multiculturalist boat with the truth about Islam.
In the spirit of Leftist smearing author Simen Sætre wrote a biography of Fjordman that is full outright lies and disinformation to paint Fjordman as a Right Wing troublemaker that stirs up hatred toward Muslims and thus incite violence against Muslims.
Below is Fjordman’s defense against the lies at the Gates of Vienna. You should really read the following comments at GV. I am going to include one comment by a GV contributor Dymphna.
JRH 5/10/13
**********************************
The Media Myths
Posted by Baron Bodissey
Posted: April 29, 2013 8:40 PM
The following newspaper article by Fjordman has been translated from the Norwegian, and includes an introduction (in English) by the author.
This essay was originally published online by the Oslo-based Aftenposten, Norway’s largest-circulation newspaper, on April 25, 2013.
The paper had come very, very close to libel-suit territory a few days earlier, when they published a big photo of me on the front page of the print edition, claiming that I am being funded by “right-wing extremists” in the USA. This was a reference to the fact that I had received a grant via the think tank The Middle East Forum, which I had stated quite publicly at Gates of Vienna.
I also told the newspaper openly when asked about this that I had received help with my legal bills (and only that) from the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project in relation to the Breivik case, following a kind offer from Daniel Pipes and competent aid from Ann Snyder and Sam Nunberg. All of this was already public and not a secret.
So Norway’s largest newspaper labeled the Middle East Forum as “right-wing extremists” on their front page. They quickly published an apology afterwards, however, possibly fearing a lawsuit from the MEF — and rightly so.
The same newspaper also published several long and negative articles in reference to a Norwegian biography of me that was published in April 2013 by the author Simen Sætre. One of my most notorious (and dishonest) critics, the professional Breivik-opportunist Øyvind Strømmen, published a “review” of this book in Aftenposten that was essentially one long hit piece against my person. After all of this, within a few days, I sent an email to Aftenposten’s political editor Harald Stanghelle, their debate editor Knut Olav Åmås as well as editor-in-chief Hilde Haugsgjerd and quite simply demanded that I be allowed to publish a full-length essay in their newspaper in response to this smear campaign.
The result is the essay below.
__________________
The media myths
by Fjordman
Translated by The Observer
In the last few days, dozens of articles about how irrelevant people like me supposedly are have been published in the newspapers. Those who work in the Norwegian mass media apparently lack a sense of irony.
In his review of Simen Sætre’s uneven biography about me, the writer Øyvind Strømmen describes my views on Islam as “strange,” despite the fact that opinion polls in many European countries show that large parts of the population are deeply skeptical of Islam. In France, more than 70 percent of those surveyed expressed doubts about Islam’s ability to adapt to their society. Similar figures may be found in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands.
There is so little substance to be found in Strømmen’s text that it is strange that he managed to get it published in Aftenposten at all. The only trick he has up his sleeve is to label certain individuals “fascists”. The fact that this is sufficient to secure him a nice career as a social commentator with virtually free access to the press says a lot about the social climate in Norway today.
It is also worth mentioning that the media have recently written about an ethnic Norwegian convert to Islam who sympathizes with the Jihadists of al-Qaida, and who may himself have undergone terrorist training in Yemen. Up until recently he was standing as a member of Miljøpartiet De Grønne (the Green Party of Norway). This is the same political party that Mr. Strømmen, Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen, and Shoaib Sultan of the Islamic Council of Norway — now of the Anti-Racist Centre — represent. The terrorist might be a lone wolf, but he comes from Øyvind Strømmen’s flock.
On April 17, 2013, Aftenposten by a “mistake” published a large photo of me at the top of the front page of the paper edition, claiming that I am being paid by “right-wing extremists” in the USA. With such war headlines, one might be tempted to think that I’m sitting deep inside a bunker, brooding over plans to invade Poland almost single-handedly by beating my opponents over the head with Islamophobic texts until they surrender. The truth, however, is that I had simply received a grant from a conservative think tank that was so secretive that I had publicly announced this myself on an earlier occasion.
Fortunately, Aftenposten quickly apologized for this “mistake,” which had allegedly happened by accident. Personally, I’m a somewhat unsure as to how such mistakes occur. Maybe someone tripped over a pencil and spilled coffee on a computer, making the computer accidentally publish a large photo of a particular person on the front page, right next to the words “right-wing extremist.” And by yet another sheer mistake, someone sent this front page off to stores across the country. The irony here is that the very same newspaper has previously criticized independent Internet sites for publishing claims they cannot document.
A journalist from Aftenposten then proceeded to question whether I am a dangerous “public enemy.” This not very objective or neutral question was clearly intended to make the readers reach a highly negative conclusion. The newspaper’s article about me was perhaps not quite a “Wanted, Dead or Alive” poster from the Wild West, but it wasn’t very far from that, either.
As usual, hardly any attempts were made to delve into the substance of my arguments, nor examine the major problems associated with Islamization and mass immigration that I write about.
The suggestion that those who are critical of Islam are “right-wing extremists” corresponds well with what Hilde Haugsgjerd, the editor-in-chief of Aftenposten, said in her testimony regarding alleged press censorship during the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. In her testimony Haugsgjerd went a long way towards in suggesting a link between Islam-critical attitudes and the “far Right.”
This is not correct. One of Europe’s best-known critics on issues related to Muslim immigration, Thilo Sarrazin, is a member of Germany’s SPD, the Social Democratic German equivalent of the Norwegian Labour Party.
Personally, I have great doubts as to whether Islam can be reformed. The Christian (Protestant) Reformation lasted many generations and was at times a rather bloody affair. If Islam cannot be reformed, this will cause serious and long-lasting conflicts in European cities. If, however, Islam against all odds can be reformed, then this will probably also create serious and long-lasting conflicts in Western cities since we are now importing Islamic culture here. In Norway, the hardline organization the Prophet’s Ummah has praised the Jihadist terrorists from Boston.
Even non-Muslim immigration can pose a problem with the millions of migrants we’re seeing at the moment, which is gradually turning the native populations in much of Europe into a minority in their own countries. Yet despite this, we continue with the mass importation of possible future conflicts, at the same time as we are discussing what the weather could be like in the year 2089. This is absurd. Just as in H.C. Andersen’s famous fairy tale, someone will have to point out the obvious truth: That the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
The independent website Document.no took screenshots of the readers’ comments on a newspaper article that was highly critical of me. To the embarrassment of Aftenposten’s management, a significant proportion of their own readers either partly agreed with me or at least thought that the smear campaign against me was going too far. And just as has happened in other similar incidents, these readers’ comments were then soon removed by the newspaper.
Many of Aftenposten’s own readers are obviously not entirely positively disposed towards Islamization and mass immigration, despite the newspaper’s many attempts to label opposition to such ideas as “right-wing extremism.” There are limits on how far a commercial enterprise can harass its own readers. Some of them might otherwise be tempted to cancel their subscriptions.
This is not really about stigmatizing a particular person, but rather about stigmatizing certain opinions which the ruling elites don’t like. You then make an example out of certain individuals in order to intimidate others into silence. In this particular case, the strategy doesn’t work as well as intended because the target — in this case me — has no intentions whatsoever of succumbing to media pressure or withdrawing statements that I believe to be accurate.
Unfortunately, it’s not always the case that the majority opinion is based on common sense, but in this case, those who are critical of Islamization and mass immigration represent both the majority of the population as well as common sense. We will no longer allow ourselves to be bullied by a radical minority that unfortunately directs much of the propaganda flow through the mass media.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.
_____________________________
Dymphna on April 29, 2013 at 10:35 pm said:
Poor Norway. A whited, benighted sepulcher if ever there was one.
I feel such sadness for those who cannot in good conscience continue to spout the increasingly ludicrous party line about the joys of multiculturalism. It must be painful to be forced to wait in silence as the damning evidence against this myth continues to mount and to watch the bodies of the victims of this farce continue to be shoved under the rug.
The elites – who never, ever have to live with the results of their pie-in-the-sky poisoned apple meddling – continue to pedal harder to avoid having it all topple on them. From the outside it’s hard to tell whether they’re –
(1) genuine patsies who swallowed the Kool Aid and thus are able to mindlessly maintain the gears on the Big Lie machine or if, on the other hand,
(2) they’re actually fully culpable pushers of this dictatorial horror — that falsetto “now-be-sure-to-play-nicely-boys” tyranny tricked out to look like a democracy. Feh.
Fjordman says:
There are limits on how far a commercial enterprise can harass its own readers.
But I would ask if a state-supported ‘business’ can be termed a commercial enterprise at all? Is it not instead a state-controlled mouthpiece? And in that respect does it differ in substance from the old Pravda? Do those readers have any real choice? Perhaps in socialist tyrannies – as exemplified by Norway – the idea of genuine entrepreneurs in media entities doesn’t actually exist?
For those of us who live outside such strictures, the notion of citizens’ taxes going to support media is repugnant UNLESS it supports all points of view – from the socialist greenies on one end of the spectrum to the Kirkian conservatives on the other.
Here in the US those pushing back with mounting indignation will win their fight to stop taxes being used to shore up the biased and often downright spurious ‘news’ emanating from the leftist National Public Radio. NPR’s claims about having “commercial free radio” are risible. If you’ve ever heard their breaks between segments, you know how incredibly fast those announcers have to speak to tell you about the financial support they get from lefty orgs, making sure to enunciate the creepy mottoes of the Agribiz conglomerates. But don’t you dare call their spiels commercials – nope, they’re just ‘announcements’. And those announcers aren’t paid shills, they’re real jornolists (sic). (And I have a lovely home with its own sinkhole in Florida for sale..)
But while we are – at the moment – forced to put up with the ugly fact of NPR’s welfare payments, we also maintain (via advertising) a wide and varied and vigorous press. Yes, the left dominates, but it can’t silence the opposition. The shame tactics in force in Europe don’t work here, though heaven knows the elitists try their damnedest to make that shame stick. Instead, the cordons sanitaires the left cobbles together to hide things they don’t want known eventually crumble and sometimes they’re even forced to eat the pieces. It was wonderful, for example, to watch CNN hastily backtracking on its silence about the Gosnell butchery, claiming later their silence was a figment of the right’s imagination. Sure it was/is.
Speech, real true freedom of speech, is under fire in this country. But it hasn’t been criminalized as it has been in Europe. Not yet, anyway.
They hide their deeply intrinsic unfairness in Norway by giving Fjordman his five minutes to talk and point to that as ‘fairness’. Then it’s back to the same old lies and the same tired bromides and same old covering the truth of the comments. World-wide, the left is shameless.
But at least Gates of Vienna is a vibrant channel beaming out the truth on Radio Free Norway. And we have the hate mail to prove it 
_________________________
Countering the Smear against Fjordman
John R. Houk
© May 10, 2013
______________________
The Media Myths
A Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad
Multicultural Blindness to the Danger of Islamic Culture
John R. Houk
© April 8, 2013
I have Fjordman on my Google email alert. I am a huge fan of Fjordman’s essays. Unfortunately Fjordman is often vilified in his native Norway for exposing the reality that modern Islam has a dark side that is completely related to the religion’s early days under its founder Mohammed and the following Caliphs that used Mo’s theo-political ideals to spread an empire and to culturally brainwash the conquered as much as was possible without completely killing them all.
It is terrifyingly fascinating that Leftists across the Western World get in line with the Muslim apologists that assert Islam has moderated today much as Christian culture in the West has abandoned its harsher actions in the name of promoting Christianity.
That which Leftists and Muslim fail to tell its listeners is that Christian holy writings condemn senseless violence to achieve goals related to the political world while Islamic writings specifically tell Muslims to use violence to defend Islam from verbal assault and to spread the religion’s theo-political ideological tenets.
When Fjordman writes the truth about Islam the vilification he receives flows in the form of the accusation of racism. The racist accusation is remarkable since Fjordman’s criticism of the practices of Islam is essentially a defense of Western culture as it has developed under the influence of Christianity and Greco-Roman thought.
The essay that has caught my attention is entitled, “Fjordman: Importing Islamic Nightmares — While Denying Them”. The Google email alert pointed me to the Winds of Jihad maintained by the pseudonym person called Sheik Yer’ Mami. However, the Fjordman essay was originally posted at FrontPage Mag.
Now that I have shown the pedigree of the essay here is the reason you should read it.
Fjordman writes about the blind eye of the Leftist governments in Norway and to a lesser extent to Sweden and shows how that blind eye has increased violent in Nordic nations to an alarming rate. It is alarming because Fjordman asserts violent crime had the fewer occurrences in Nordic nations than any other place in Free Europe. Tragically the violent crimes have less to do with criminal enterprises and more to do with expressing Islamic Supremacism over the native Nordic/Western Culture.
Now if you are an American reader you need to pay attention to this cultural blind eye toward Islamic culture and the Muslims that exude that religion because the ‘Islam is Peace’ crowd in America will perpetuate the idiocy of European Leftist cultural blindness in the name of Multiculturalism.
JRH 4/8/13
A New Academic Discipline: Fjordmanology
I am a huge reader of Fjordman. Thanks to the massacre of Anders Breivik in Norway Fjordman’s real name – Peder Jensen – has been made public which place a target on his back for purist Muslims to attempt to assassinate him. Also thanks to the nut job Breivik Counterjihad writers and teachers have been ridiculed as Right Wing haters by Leftists and MSM writers especially in Europe. Fjordman should be a hero in exposing the dark side of Islam instead his home nation Norway has nearly joined the ‘Fjordman’ name to be as notorious as the Norwegian murderer Breivik.
Here is an example of this blind idiocy from a post from the Gates of Vienna.
JRH 1/5/12
**************************
A New Academic Discipline: Fjordmanology
Posted by Baron Bodissey
12/27/12 7:58 PM
This morning Fjordman sent out the following tweet:
An entire academic Fjordman-industry is now developing. When will Norway produce the first PhD thesis in fjordmanology?
He was referring to an article in På Høyden, the online newspaper of the University of Bergen. I don’t have a formal translation, but using Google, and with additional help from Henrik Ræder Clausen, I was able to piece together the latest news from Modern Multicultural Norway.
A Norwegian professor of “digital culture” named Jill Walker Rettberg has helped midwife a new fellowship that will investigate extremism on the Internet. According to På Høyden:
“22 July forced us to see that there is a lot of extremism on the net,” says Professor Jill Walker Rettberg. Now the Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies has announced a fellowship that is designated for research on extreme speech on the web.
The new scholarship was added to the Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies. “There has been little research on extremism on the Internet, at least from a humanist perspective,” says Prof. Walker Rettberg.
Generally speaking, she is positive about the internet:
“The network is global. It’s wonderful if, for instance, one has a very specific disease or a child with special problem — then one can make contact with the few others who are in the same situation. But it is also easier to find other people who have the same and perhaps equally quirky viewpoints as oneself. One talks about a filter bubble or an echo chamber — it means that one only sees those who are similar to oneself,” says Walker Rettberg.
She adds: “Analyses can focus on language, rhetoric, ideology, visual instruments, aesthetics, discourse or social networks… We want to build up expertise in this field. The debate has shown that there are many views — but there is little scientific research.”
Norwegian academics are known to be scrupulously fair and even-handed in their dispassionate scholarly investigations, so we can be certain that the new discipline will take at least a cursory look at left-wing extremists, and maybe even Islamic radicals.
However, the reader is left in no doubt about the real meat of the matter — the dreaded Fjordman:
One of bloggers focused on by the media after 22 July was Fjordman. He was mentioned in Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto, and it has been said that he was Breivik’s mentor. Fjordman is a radical right-wing anti-Islamist. Among others, Marie Simonsen — the political editor of Dagbladet — has charged that he is an extremist who calls for political violence.
Prof. Walker Rettberg adds, “I knew about Fjordman before 22 July, but I had not made a close examination of what he said.”
All that will change as soon as all that petroleum-backed grant money starts flowing into the Department of Aesthetic Studies. A tireless and fully-funded investigator will leave no stone unturned as he, she, or it gets to the bottom of the dangerous xenophobic right-wing extremist phenomenon known as “Fjordman”.
Obviously, the most qualified candidate for the new position is Fjordman himself. After all, who knows more about Fjordmanology than he does? Just think of the research time and effort that would be saved if he were to take up the fellowship!
I think he should apply for the job.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jill Walker Rettberg talks about the “echo chamber” that all of us right-wing extremists inhabit. And what she says is true enough — I’m certainly preaching to the choir here 99% of the time.
But what would you call the mainstream media, especially in Norway, if not an “echo chamber”? Doesn’t Prof. Walker Rettberg inhabit a “filter bubble” of her own?
After extensive research into the topic of left-wing extremism in the media, I have come to the conclusion that their primary gripe with the Internet is that it has broken their monopoly on the cultural echo chamber. Now all of those “right-wing extremists” and “xenophobes” can establish their own echo chambers, where they are able to send their racist yodels bouncing back and forth across the virtual valleys of the digital uplands.
And the reach of these new filter bubbles is enormous. The echoes resonate across the entire globe, with millions of people on six continents listening in on them.
This must be galling for a tenured professor of digital nonsense, who is only able to be heard by a few thousand like-minded academics because the state delivers dump truck loads of kroner to her department to support all the claptrap and flapdoodle that passes for “research” in the modern Norwegian academy.
Pull out the petrodollars, and all those professors of comparative cultural oppression would be reduced to boning herring in the canneries, as were their foremothers a hundred and fifty years ago.
Let them shovel out the mammon to themselves while they can. Their time is short.
As a wise man named Lao Tzu said more than two millennia ago:
This is not the way of Tao.
Whatever is contrary to Tao will not last long.
Follow Fjordman on Twitter: Fjordman@Fjordman1
The Lao Tzu quote is from Chapter Fifty-Five of The Tao Te Ching.
________________________
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
Is Anders Behring Breivik the Nordic Che Guevara?
Ever since the Norwegian Massacre, at the hands of Anders Breivik, Leftists and Muslim Apologists have been very active in blaming Counterjihad Writers for inciting Muslims to commit violence. At first glance there is some logic to the stand of Leftists and Muslim Apologists. Breivik’s magnum opus consistently utilizes exposés of Counterjihad Writers as part of his plan to incite Europeans to a revolution against the European ruling elite. Breivik’s revolution imagined a New European Order that would unite Europeans under some kind of Odinic-Christian (Understanding Odinism: Here, Here, Here and Here) religion (can you imagine the Nazi Aryan Race of Hitler?) that would preserve a connection to Europe’s Greco-Roman-Christian heritage with a large splash German-Nordic influence.
Fjordman takes on the ‘blame the Counterjihadists’ mentality by pointing out Marxists are responsible for genocides in which millions died and yet Europe’s Socialist oriented politics and Communist terrorists of the past are hailed as heroes of yesteryear. Fjordman zeroes in on the atrocities of Che Guevara (incidentally Obama is a Guevara admirer See also Here).
JRH 10/8/12 (Hat Tip: Politicus)
*********************************
Is Anders Behring Breivik the Nordic Che Guevara?
By Fjordman
Oct 5th, 2012
In a provocative essay at the website Gates of Vienna, I once asked whether the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik could be labeled the “Nordic Muhammad.” The first pair of forensic psychiatrists who evaluated Breivik compared his self-image to religious literature. He claimed to be a “perfect” man worthy of emulation. John L. Esposito, one of the most pro-Islamic writers in the Western world, states that Muhammad can be seen as the “living Koran.” He is viewed by Muslims as a perfect man worthy of emulation, almost like Breivik imagined himself to be.
Yet, fortunately for us, Breivik did not found a new religion. Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask is whether Breivik, with his sadistic cruelty and bloodthirstiness, is a Nordic equivalent of Che Guevara.
On page 1164 of his confused manifesto, Breivik quoted the Marxist leader Fidel Castro, who ruled Cuba for more than half a century: “I began the revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I would do it with 10 or 15 individuals with absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and a plan of action.” Mr. Castro represents a violent totalitarian ideology, but although he is a revolutionary Socialist he has not been blamed by the mass media for inspiring Breivik. That is reserved for so-called “Islamophobes.”
On April 23 2012, during the trial in Oslo, Breivik compared himself to the Marxist militants and revolutionary Socialists Fidel Castro and Ernesto “Che” Guevara. The latter has become a popular icon of rebellion and anti-capitalism among segments of the political Left throughout the Western world, his image decorating posters and t-shirts and used to sell everything from coffee mugs to key chains. ABB claimed that his alleged Knights Templar militant network had as much legitimacy as these Marxists did in their violent struggle to overthrow the ruling regimes.
This was, as usual, not emphasized much by journalists with Socialist sympathies. The Socialist Left Party, part of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s coalition government, have resisted calls for a boycott of the Communist dictatorship in Cuba, but at the same time wanted to boycott goods from democratic Israel. Much the same may be said about the Labor Party’s intimate and powerful partner, the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO).
When Breivik greeted the court several times with a clenched fist, the press described this as a “right-wing extremist salute,” without mentioning that virtually the same gesture has been used by the Black Panthers and modern Socialist rulers such as Hugo Chavez in Latin America or the Marxist terrorist Carlos the Jackal.
Peter Neumann, the Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation in London, claims that Breivik has changed our view of “lone wolf” terrorists radicalized by the Internet. The historian Nikolai Brandal, however, labels him a “hybrid terrorist” who sought inspiration from many different sources. During his court testimony, Brandal found it noteworthy that Breivik employs the term “urban guerrilla” for his style of warfare. This term was popularized in the 1960s, partly by the revolutionary international Socialist Che Guevara.
Che Guevara played a major role in the cooperation between Fidel Castro’s Communist-ruled Cuba and the Soviet Union, thereby contributing to the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 that almost triggered a full-scale intercontinental nuclear war between the two superpowers of the era, the USA and the Soviet Union.
Che actually regretted that it didn’t come to nuclear war, proclaiming that “If the nuclear missiles had remained [in Cuba] we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!” He also said some extremely negative things about black people as well as homosexuals, statements that are usually covered up by his left-wing cheerleaders today.
The writer Rubén Palma, who was originally born and raised in Chile but has lived in Denmark for the past four decades, has looked into some little-quoted, but well-documented, material about Che Guevara.
The French Marxist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, an apologist for the murderous Communist regime of Josef Stalin, at one point called Che Guevara “the most complete human being of our time.” The Oscar-winning American film director and screenwriter Steven Soderbergh has worked with A-list Hollywood movie stars such as George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Julia Roberts. He also made the two part-film Che in 2008, which was more than four hours long and described the protagonist in largely positive terms.
Che Guevara publicly bragged about executing as many opponents of the glorious Socialist revolution as he deemed necessary, stating that “Our fight is a fight to the death!” Yet as Rubén Palma dryly notes, this turned out to be mainly a struggle against unarmed opponents tied to a pole, or a fight to other people’s death. That was Che’s specialty. In Palma’s view, newer material on Che Guevara shows clearly how his skills as a military leader have often been dramatically exaggerated – and his callous and violent personality meticulously hidden.
During a speech in 1967, Che praised the “uncompromising hatred” that transforms a man into a determined, effective and cold-blooded “killing machine.” Already in his diary in 1952, he had fantasies about how he would in the future storm barricades and trenches, “behead” any enemy he could lay his hands on and dip his weapon in their blood. He felt excited by the mere thought of this, and that was written while he was a medical student. Clearly, the “do no harm” doctrine of the Hippocratic Oath, so central to Western medicine, meant little to him.
Che became an active member of the Purging Commission, which as the name implies was designed to get rid of enemies of the Socialist revolution. From 1957 to 1959, he ordered dozens of summary executions – many of which were carried out by him own hand. During his years as a revolutionary, he was responsible for hundreds of murders, which he often watched or participated in while drinking alcohol and smoking cigars. Che has been described as a hateful and cruel man who enjoyed terrorizing and demeaning prisoners or their relatives.
The best thing I can say about Che Guevara is that, unlike Anders Behring Breivik, he participated in several real struggles against armed opponents who actually shot back. He published a manual entitled Guerrilla Warfare in 1961, although critics claim that his alleged skills as a military strategist have been greatly exaggerated.
What is undisputed, however, is that in Cuba and elsewhere, Che personally participated in dozens of executions, usually without trial, of unarmed men and women. He talked about “fighting to the death,” but it turned out to be other people’s death he was referring to. It is commonly accepted that when he was finally captured in Bolivia in 1967, Che shouted “Don’t shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead.”
During his massacre at Utøya Anders Behring Breivik executed unarmed opponents, just as Che enjoyed doing. Also like Che, he surrendered when finally faced with armed opponents who were in a position to kill him. Breivik has claimed that he planned to become a “martyr” and did not expect to survive his attacks.
Perhaps, but this explanation does not sound entirely credible. The risks to himself with his attacks were greater than zero, but not terribly great, either, since he attacked unarmed people who were totally unprepared for a fight, mentally as well as physically. Given the fact that Breivik the narcissist seems to relish media attention surrounding his person, I consider it at least as likely that he wanted to survive. Other observers agree.
If he had wanted to be killed, he could easily have done so. Somewhat belatedly, he was eventually confronted by armed police at the island. Americans have observed a phenomenon they call “suicide by cop,” whereby a person who wants to die provokes armed police into shooting him. Breivik still had ammunition left when the police finally showed up. If he had wanted to make a final stand and go down in a blaze of bullets, he could have done so. But he didn’t. When finally faced with armed opponents who could and would take him out, he meekly surrendered.
Breivik the military dilettante exhibited many of the same violent fantasies as Che, including even the possibility of beheading his victims, and displayed cruel sadism when executing dozens of unarmed victims. Also just like Che Guevara, his fight to the death turned out to be a fight to other people’s death, whereas he himself in the end surrendered to people who could actually shoot back. Due to his toxic combination of cruelty, hypocrisy and cowardice, Anders Behring Breivik could be labeled the “Nordic Che Guevara.”
Fortunately, even though Breivik was for a while a peripheral member of the Progress Party in Oslo, we haven’t seen many coffee mugs or t-shirts bearing his portrait among members of the political Right. For some reason, celebration of mass murderers and terrorists seems to be more widespread in segments of the political Left.
________________________
Copyright© 2012 FrontPageMagazine.com
Irrational Fear of Islam?
The word “Islamophobia” is often used as a pejorative to describe counterjihadists as racists and/or bigots. A short definition for Islamophobia is the irrational fear of Islam. You have to understand that is exactly the game plan of the theopolitical aspect of Islamic theology; i.e. to strike fear into non-Muslims (kafir) in order to submit to the Quranic authority or to convert. In a Muslim nation a lack of submission may result in a mob killing you or the law handing down a death sentence for blaspheming Islam and Mohammed.
My favorite counterjihad essayist Fjordman deals with Leftist journalists that have gone on a campaign to vilify those that expose the dark nature of Islam. You definitely need to read this essay.
JRH 10/6/12 (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)
Counter-Jihad Writing is Expose Islam Rather than Hate Muslims
John R. Houk
© August 25, 2012
Anders Breivik was recently convicted for his mass murder in Norway. There is no doubt Breivik created his delusional agenda by acting out from Counter-Jihad writers. That is a fair enough analysis. On the other hand it is an unfair conclusion to blame Counter-Jihad writers for Breivik’s mass murder.
Counter-Jihad writers do not expose the dark side of Islam to incite hate but rather to incite understanding and caution.
Why do non-Muslim Westerners need understanding and caution in relation to Islam?
It is Because Islamic Culture and Islamic Sharia Law is not compatible to Western Culture in concepts of Liberty and Freedom. This is especially the case with the United States of America which has Liberty and Freedom encoded in the Constitution’s First Amendment which touches on Religious Freedom, Free Speech, Free Press and the Freedom to Protest and to freely redress grievances to the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So acceptance of Islam by Left Wing Multiculturalists is a path to destroying Western Culture as Muslim demand more and more acceptance of Islamic Supremacism inherent in their holy writings and Sharia Law.
Well that is my two-cents. Fjordman has some thoughts which I am cross posting from the Gates of Vienna. I am not going to include the Norwegian language version which can found at the end of the English version of Fjordman’s thoughts.
JRH 8/25/12
Fjordman: The Bias and Dishonesty of Wikipedia
Due to the psycho mass murderer Anders Breivik, Fjordman has been a target of the Mainstream Media (MSM) because Breivik manipulated many of Fjordman’s essays into his manifesto to change Europe’s political order through terrorism. The multiculturalists of Europe have pretty much labeled Fjordman a person that incites hatred. The problem is the MSM picks up on the multiculturalist labeling without checking out Fjordman’s scholarship which is detailed from facts and not fabrication. Norwegian authorities astonishingly have interrogated Fjordman in a hostile manner in relation to the butcher of Utøya Youth Camp as if he some kind of ring leader.
According Fjordman he has ignored the multiculturalist critics; however he felt the need to set the record straight as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Below is that article as posted at EuropeNews.
JRH 6/23/12 (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)
**********************************
Fjordman: The Bias and Dishonesty of Wikipedia
By Fjordman
19 June 2012
I cannot and will not respond to all of the negative writings about me or accusations against me. My time is limited, and may be more usefully spent doing other things. My initial instinct was to ignore the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, too, but on further reflection, it seemed necessary to clarify the record.
Tens of millions of people use Wikipedia on a regular basis. They have a right to know just how biased this source can be and sometimes is.
Because Wikipedia is continuously edited by numerous unpaid volunteers in many countries, it changes more frequently than, say, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. The following Wikipedia citations all refer to entries as they existed on June 15, 2012. One may hope some of these will later be changed for the better.
I will mainly focus on the English and Norwegian language editions in this discussion. The Vietnamese, Kurdish, Esperanto or Azerbaijani versions may also have problems, but I haven’t checked them. And yes, these all exist. By the summer of 2012, Wikipedia had entries on Anders Behring Breivik in about 60 different languages, which probably pleases his grossly inflated ego immensely. He is a nobody who became a somebody through mass murder.
The English entry on ABB claims that “In his writings Breivik displays admiration for the English Defence League (EDL)” and “sought to start a Norwegian version of the Tea Party movement” in the USA, who want lower taxes and less government interference in the lives of individual citizens. As a matter of fact, the EDL are quite marginal in the manifesto, receiving only a handful of very short mentions in more than 1500 pages.
The single most extensive quote about the EDL there is actually extremely negative, denouncing them as pathetic and useless non-violent sissies. Yet Breivik’s denouncing the EDL in the mainstream media was transformed into a mantra of “Breivik was just like the EDL, who are a group of potential terrorists.” This is, to say the least, grossly dishonest.
Under the subheading “Writing influences,” Wikipedia listed among others the Freedom Party of Austria, the Swiss People’s Party, Winston Churchill, Robert Spencer, Patrick Buchanan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, the Australian historian Keith Windschuttle, Charles Martel, Richard Lionheart and John III Sobieski of Poland.
To their credit, the Wikipedia community included a (very brief) reference to that fact that Breivik admired and wanted to copy the brutality and methods of the Islamic Jihadist terror network al-Qaida. It also stated in a single paragraph that Wikipedia was extensively quoted in the manifesto and that Breivik during the trial named the free encyclopedia as his primary source of education, but the entry did not elaborate more upon this.
It said much more about Breivik’s alleged ties or sympathies to Zionists, “far Right” Islamophobes, “national conservatives” or even the English journalist Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear, the popular BBC television show about cars which currently enjoys hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide. From reading this Wikipedia entry, one might get the impression that Anders Behring Breivik was the collective product of all European and Western forces to the Right of the Social Democrats who don’t kiss the boots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Much has been written about Anders Behring Breivik and his relationship with the Internet. It is true that he was affected by visiting blogs, reading texts or news, seeing videos or playing computer games online. On a darker note, he used it during his terror preparations to buy equipment, weapons and effects for his self-made uniform, and also to send his so-called manifesto by email to hundreds of people. However, the Internet itself is neither good nor bad; just like telephones or books are not. Technical tools may change the manner in which human beings interact, but they ultimately reflect the complexities of human relationships and the human mind itself.
The American entrepreneur Jimmy Wales co-founded Wikipedia as a free Internet-based encyclopedia operating under an open-source management style, edited collaboratively by volunteers and amateurs in multiple languages. Despite its significant flaws, chief of which is the lack of professionalism, Wikipedia has over the past decade become one of the most popular websites on the entire planet and is sometimes openly credited as a source by the mass media. Jimmy Wales visited Oslo to participate in Wikipedia Academy 2012. He then stated that his creation simply reflects ordinary human beings and their culture, for better or worse.
Just to highlight how important the encyclopedia is considered to be, a number of senior representatives of national political and cultural life participated in Wikipedia Academy 2012 alongside Wales and Jarle Vines from Wikimedia Norway. One of them was Heikki Holmås of the Socialist Left Party, the Minister of International Development in the Stoltenberg government. The Arts Council Norway, the main governmental operator for the implementation of Norwegian cultural policy, fully financed by the Ministry of Culture, announced in 2012 that it had set aside money for training purposes to encourage certain state employees to edit entries at Wikipedia.
Knut Olav Åmås, debate editor at newspaper Aftenposten, warned in 2010 that the Arts Council, which controls substantial sums of tax payers’ money that is of interest to many people in key positions in the country’s cultural life, exhibits less and less independence from the Ministry. Åmås suggested that this was a desired policy by Minister of Culture Trond Giske and his successor Anniken Huitfeldt, both from the Labor Party.
While being more tightly controlled by the left-wing government, the Council has increased significantly in staff and budget. Its current director Anne Aasheim, a lesbian Feminist who previously was editor-in-chief of the left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, worked for years in senior positions at the state broadcaster NRK.
The English Wikipedia entry on me by mid-June 2012 was extremely negative and biased. The opinions of known ideological enemies were presented as the gospel truth. It matter-of-factly referred to Eurabia as a “conspiracy theory” and contained several outright falsehoods about my person. For example, it claimed that the Norwegian police “called me in for questioning” and that I “agreed” to have my premises searched. I did no such thing. They couldn’t call me in for questioning, since neither they nor the press had any idea who I was.
I did not agree to have my flat ransacked, and I still question the legality of doing so to a witness with no criminal record, given that the police didn’t have a shred of evidence that this person had committed a crime. Unfortunately, I apparently cannot try the legality of their action in a court afterwards because the Supreme Court has ruled against this. Which means that the Norwegian police, without having permission from a judge, can ransack the flat of a person who is not charged with anything criminal, and confiscate whatever they want, and that person cannot contest this decision in a court afterwards because by then the damage has already been done.
For the record: the report from my questioning written by the police themselves, which I later signed, clearly stated that my lawyer and I did not approve of my premises being searched. Therefore the account published in Wikipedia is a lie, plain and simple.
The entire entry reads like a case study in character assassination. There are almost too many things about my profile there to criticize, but take this quote as an example: “Norwegian historian Vidar Enebakk has criticised the way he thought Fjordman misused academic research for political purposes. Øyvind Strømmen argues that Fjordman’s essays fulfill all the criteria of Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism. The Norwegian professor Arnulf Hagen claims that there was much to suggest that Fjordman had a Wikipedia account which made 2000 edits.”
Let’s start with the final claim first. Arnulf Hagen, a technology professor at NTNU, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in the city of Trondheim, claimed that Wikipedia has been manipulated by “right-wing extremist networks.” He did point out some real flaws in the Wikipedia model, for instance that a tiny percentage of its anonymous users are responsible for a vastly disproportionate number of edits or entries there.
In a magazine published by the labor unions (LO), which cooperate intimately with the Labor Party, Hagen suggested that I have operated within a vast right-wing extremist network in the Wiki-world under the nickname Misheu, and there edited more than two thousand articles. That’s definitely a very interesting theory. The only problem with it is that is has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever and is 100% fabricated. I never had anything actively to do with Wikipedia at all under any name until well after the Breivik case, when I first contacted them to request that a few statements on their extremely hostile entries on me be edited. I didn’t even know how to log in there.
That fact didn’t prevent Mr. Hagen from publishing several articles about this issue and being interviewed about it by the national broadcaster NRK. Curiously, nobody asked me about the matter even though quite a few journalists have my email address.
In another venue, Professor Arnulf Hagen, again without having the tiniest shred of evidence, stated that the American author Bruce Bawer writes at the blog Gates of Vienna under the pseudonym The Observer. For the record: I know who The Observer is, and he is an ethnic Norwegian.
Wikipedia suggests that Eurabia is a “conspiracy theory,” despite the fact that those wring about this subject can back up every single claim using publicly available sources. I am also routinely refereed to as a “conspiracy theorist” in the mainstream media in multiple countries, despite the fact that they find it hard to pinpoint exactly what I have written that is factually wrong. Yet here we have a case where a respected academic at a noted national university simply invents things out of thin air, thereby implicating named individuals in a vast conspiracy. He had these claims published with nary a single critical question asked by established journalists.
It says bad things about the state of modern academia when an established professor, who is supposed to know a thing or two about sources and doing critical research, fails so utterly and publicly in this task. I hope Hagen is better at his job under normal circumstances. If not, perhaps he should consider finding a different line of work.
As for the second claim, in the Norwegian, English and German entries on me, writer Øyvind Strømmen is referenced as an objective scholar saying that I am a “Fascist.” Under relevant literature in the Norwegian entry for “Eurabia,” Strømmen is listed along with the far-Left and pro-Islamic Swedish activist Andreas Malm, who writes for the Socialist newspaper Internationalen. Yet, incredibly enough, Bat Ye’or’s book from 2005 is not mentioned.
By comparison, Strømmen’s entries in English and Norwegian were entirely positive, simply praising him for his “insights” into “conspiracy theories utilized by the far-right, anti-Islamic groups in Europe.” The entries in both languages contain hardly a single critical word about him, despite the fact that a substantial number of people do not agree with Mr. Strømmen and some seriously question his alleged credentials as an academic “expert.” The difference is that the political Left, who appear to control Wikipedia, like him, but not me.
I pointed out to the encyclopedia that Strømmen has no stronger academic credentials than I do and is highly politicized. If his opinions about me can be cited on my Wiki profile, it is only fair and balanced that I be allowed to state my opinions about him, too, which have been quoted in the press previously. They ignored this plea.
As for the third claim, the researcher Vidar Enebakk from the University of Oslo, who has acted as a visiting scholar at the University of Cambridge in England on the history of science, in September 2011 wrote an essay in the newspaper VG concerning the articles I have published on the Internet about the history of science, from geology to quantum physics.
According to him, the range of my writings is impressive, their contents “scarily good,” although he did admittedly have some reservations about some of my interpretations.
Enebakk does not agree with my political views at all, but he was nevertheless fair enough to evaluate my writings on science and found them well-informed.
As for being politicized, history-writing is probably always politicized, but has become extremely so over the past decades under Multicultural and Marxist pressures. I am simply making a modest attempt to add some sorely needed counterbalance to what I consider to be anti-European propaganda, and can always document what I write. Far too many myths about alleged European Christian evilness and Islamic tolerance and scientific progress are allowed to remain unchallenged today.
In 2009 and 2010 I published A History of Astrophysics and Cosmology, A History of Geology and Planetary Science and A History of Beer. These three essays alone amount to more than 74,000 words, or a full-length book. All of this was published for free. I didn’t receive a single cent for doing this and didn’t ask for any, either. I have written very extensive historical essays about the history of European music, mathematics, optics, Indo-European linguistics, superstring theory and chocolate. I’ve spent years researching how Europe and the Islamic world used the Greco-Roman cultural legacy differently. Again, all published online entirely for free.
Scientific history is not a marginal part of my production but has been purposefully ignored by Wikipedia. I have written more about astronomy and astrophysics than I have about radical Feminism, but one would know nothing about that from reading their entries. I sent links to these and other essays of mine that can be found on the Internet on the so-called Fjordman Files to Wikipedia Norway. I was answered by John Erling Blad. Yet they deliberately chose to ignore them, despite the fact that I could easily document all of my claims. This amounts to a crystal-clear violation of Wikipedia’s own stated principles, presumably for political reasons.
The Norwegian Wiki entry under “political debate” said that I declined a challenge by Abid Raja, a politician of Pakistani descent, for a debate in August 2011. At that point I had needed a few weeks off to recover from the inhuman media pressure against my person. I also didn’t like the bullying “You’re going to participate in my media stunt or I’ll call you a coward” attitude. That was all the entry said under political debate, even though I could easily document that I have published quite a few texts in the press after this. Again, this fact was willfully ignored.
A suspicion that this is done for ideological reasons is strengthened by statements made to the mass media. The public broadcaster NRK, Norway’s equivalent of the BBC, stated that Wikipedia needs help to increase patrolling and keep “right-wing extremists” away. Jarle Vines, the leader of Wikimedia Norway, warned that even the boundlessly evil Fjordman has tried to manipulate the entries. Ironically, Mr. Vines highlighted the goals of being “objective,” fair and “balanced.” I contacted Wikipedia regarding my entry and a couple of others precisely because I found them seriously lacking in terms of being objective, fair and balanced.
“There is no lack of people who share Breivik’s opinions among users of Wikipedia,” says Jarle Vines, especially on controversial topics such as Islamophobia. Harald Haugland, a member of the Wikipedia administration, thinks there is reason to believe that like-minded groups concentrate on the English version, which has many more readers. He warns against using the encyclopedia as a primary source of scholarly knowledge, however.
Suggestions have been made that people who “sympathize with Breivik,” by which they seem to mean anybody who thinks that Islamic Jihad and the spread of sharia are greater threats than Islamophobia, have launched an assault on Wikipedia. Yet their entry on “Islamophobia” in languages such as English, German, French, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish and Danish presents Islamophobia as a serious problem that could threaten world peace, indicating a very substantial and possibly systemic Wikipedia bias in favor of Islam and Multiculturalism.
The Islamic convert Anne Sophie Roald, a professor in History of Religion, has indicated that Islamophobia was recognized as intolerance at the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance in January 2001. The conference, attended by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Secretary General Ján Kubis and representatives of the European Union and Council of Europe, adopted a declaration to combat “genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia” as well as all forms of discrimination.
This program to combat Islamophobia in any way, shape or form has over the past decade been institutionalized at a pan-European level in the CoE and the EU, in cooperation with Islamic organizations. These are not empty words.
Notice that this conference about combating opposition to Islam took place before the attacks of September 11th, 2001. It did not happen in response to any particular event; it was part of an ongoing process at the highest levels of European policy-making, the UN and other organizations to clamp down upon any criticism of Islam.
When compiling his manifesto or compendium, Anders Behring Breivik made extensive use of Wikipedia, which he briefly suggested might be a battlefield. Yet as these examples demonstrate, Wikipedia arguably suffers from a substantial bias towards the very forces Breivik professes to hate, which reminds us once more of how clueless Breivik has often been.
What conclusions can be drawn from this? I’m not suggesting that no one should ever use Wikipedia under any circumstances. With caution, I occasionally do so myself, at least as one of many sources, when searching for simple factual information about subjects that are not politically charged. However, the more politicized the subjects or individuals involved become, the less reliable Wikipedia becomes as well.
Wikipedia should be treated in the same manner as the BBC. The BBC is fine as long as one is interested in cars or the colorful sex life of some rare beetle on Madagascar. One just shouldn’t rely on it for information concerning ideology, politics, culture, religion or world affairs.
____________________________
About EuropeNews:
• EuropeNews represents the principles of freedom of the press, clarification & human rights against canons of religious intolerance and terrorism.
• EuropeNews Press Review gathers independent day-by-day news regardless of political standpoints or ideologies.
• EuropeNews select the best articles from the most credible of thousands of information sources, to show the diversity of viewpoints and information available with modern media.
• EuropeNews media monitoring stands for transparent democracy.
• EuropeNews editorial staff followes no political or economic interests, but offers daily updated a wide selection of articles about democracy & Islam Ideologie.
• EuropeNews is a neutral media service run by volunteer effort. Our editoral and financial independence is important to us.
Fjordman Tackles Testimony in Breivik Massacre Trial
by Fjordman
Note:
This text was initially written in Norwegian and then translated into English, but since most of the readers are non-Scandinavians, the English version will be presented here first.Denne teksten ble skrevet på norsk og oversatt til engelsk, men siden de fleste av leserne er ikke-skandinaver har jeg valgt å presentere den engelske versjonen først, fulgt av den norske.
In 2012 I was subpoenaed as a witness for the trial against the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik by his defense lawyers. Until the beginning of June I seriously considered saying yes to testifying on the Internet but eventually rejected this. One of the reasons for this is that I intensely disliked the way the defense lawyers had mistreated a number of people, trying to harass them into testifying without informing them that they actually did not have a legal obligation to testify at all. I find this behavior rude and unethical.
I also found it unacceptable that certain expert witnesses were
defined as “right-wing extremists” whose testimonies could not be broadcast. This was stated by the court itself, represented by judges Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Arne Lyng plus co-judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Anne Elisabeth Wisløff and Diana Patricia Fynbo.In essence, this implied that the testimonies of pro-Multicultural and pro-Islamic persons could be broadcast, whereas those critical of Multiculturalism and Islam, such as myself and Bruce Bawer, could not be broadcast. This represented naked political and ideological censorship by the court, which is unacceptable.
I did have a number of things that I wanted to convey to the public, however. I have therefore decided to publish a testimony online that I would have liked to have given. I received a few questions from Breivik’s defense lawyers indicating that they wanted to ask me about censorship and bias in the mass media. My short answer to this is that yes, there is censorship in the mainstream media, which generally suffer from a pronounced left-wing political and ideological bias in favor of Islam, mass immigration and Multiculturalism.
However, I do not want to make that the main issue. It is unlikely that I would have been able to present a testimony identical to the one you can read here since I would have been interrupted and asked different questions. Yet I do believe that many of the issues I raise here are relevant to the Breivik case overall.
English version
Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your background?
My real name is Peder Jensen. I have posted articles on the Internet under the pseudonym Fjordman since February 2005. I initially started writing articles on my own blog, but from 2006 I have guest-blogged on other websites, usually in English, although some of my texts have been translated into several different languages.
I was born and raised in Ålesund. I am a university graduate having studied English, taking exams in history with an emphasis on Norwegian history, world history, Middle Eastern and Chinese history. I began studying the Arabic language at the University of Bergen, Norway and continued with these studies at the American University of Cairo in Egypt in 2001.
I worked for the Norwegian-led observer group TIPH in the Palestinian city of Hebron in 2002 and most of 2003. This was partly coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but I was formally employed by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), then led by the current party secretary of the Norwegian Labor Party, Raymond Johansen. One of my bosses in Hebron was Arnstein Øverkil, former head of the Police Security Service (PST). I took a master’s degree at the University of Oslo in culture and technology in 2004, writing a master’s thesis on blogging in Iran.
I have entertained the idea of taking a PhD in topics related to Internet censorship, but I haven’t pursued this idea so far. I deliberately decided not to embark on a career in the NRC, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar organizations, partly for political reasons. I had become highly critical of Islam and found it increasingly difficult to work for organizations which I found to be too pro-Islamic.
There are many decent people working for the NRC who do a good job, but the organization’s condemnation of the Danish Muhammad cartoons made it virtually impossible for me to continue working for them. I interpreted their response to this incident as a clear submission to sharia law, Islamic intimidation and censorship, and I couldn’t accept that.
What was your reaction to the July 22 attacks? You decided to contact the Norwegian police?
At the time of the attacks, in the summer of 2011, I was working part-time at a center for individuals with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome. This was a decent job with decent individuals, but as a part-time job it also gave me the flexibility to focus on my writing while at the same time paying the most basic bills. The people I worked with there knew absolutely nothing about my blogging activities.
I was living in Oslo on July 22. By July 23, literally overnight, I had become the country’s second-most hated person due to the actions of a mentally unbalanced man I have never met. This was an absurd situation that was very difficult to handle. Some of my friends advised me to leave Norway immediately, but I considered this to be cowardice. People who run away also tend to look guilty, and I had done nothing criminal.
After discussing it with friends and family, I decided to contact the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST). I physically visited their national headquarter in Nydalen in Oslo on July 27, where I introduced myself by my real name. They told me that they were busy and asked me instead to send them an email, which I did. They then referred me to the regular police.
After consulting with my lawyers at the law firm of Staff, I voluntarily reported at the Manglerud Police Station in Oslo on August 4, 2011 accompanied by attorney Knut Ditlev-Simonsen. At that time neither the police authorities nor the Norwegian mass media had the slightest idea who I was, even though police attorney Kraby claimed otherwise.
Read the rest of this entryHow Islam Killed Greco-Roman Civilization
In case you are unaware, huge amounts of Academic historical writings have emphasized the politically correct and Muslim Apologist revisionist history. In other words Academic Papers and books of an Academic source have disdained older academia and have latched onto the Muslim storyline of the spread of Islam across North Africa and Europe.
Emmet Scott has written Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy to set the record straight on the viciousness of Islamic conquests. The anti-jihadist essayist Fjordman has an excellent review of Scott’s book.
For a little comparison here is another book review of Scott’s book.
JRH 5/20/12 (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)
