Yet Another Aspiring Apparatchik Exploits Norway’s 9/11


Axel Fjeld

 

I just read a great article at PJ Media (formerly Pajamas Media) rebutting a European Leftist crying Islamophobe. Bruce Bawer speculates Axel Fjeld is trying to use his academic prowess to make his bones to get a job working in some form of lucrative European Leftist media.

 

Unfortunately for Fjeld, Bawer shows the racist-Islamophobe accusations against Counterjihad writers is based on barefaced lies.

 

JRH 7/29/18

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Yet Another Aspiring Apparatchik Exploits Norway’s 9/11

 

By BRUCE BAWER

JULY 25, 2018

PJ Media

 

The ring-shaped sculpture made of steel which carries the engraved names of the victims of the Utoya massacre on the island of Utoya, Norway, on August 5, 2015. (Sigrid Harms/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images)

 

This year I was not going to write about 7/22, often known as Norway’s 9/11. It is the date in 2011 on which Anders Behring Breivik bombed government buildings in Oslo, killing eight people, and then gunned down sixty-nine more, mostly kids, on the nearby island of Utøya. Famously, Breivik wrote – or rather cobbled together – a massive “manifesto” consisting mainly of material from various sources that he had cut and pasted. Most of it was critical of Islam, and it was apparently meant as a justification for his actions. But none of the people whose work he borrowed had ever called for violence, let alone violence against children.

 

Nevertheless, after 7/22, the Norwegian left was quick to insist on a linkage between Breivik and serious critics of Islam, and to argue, moreover, that those critics needed to be silenced in order to avoid any more such atrocities. For a while there things got pretty dicey, with prominent academics, authors, and politicians demanding strict limits on freedom of speech and stiff prison penalties for anyone violating those limits. In one op-ed after another, I saw my name, and that of other writers, dragged through the mud. I ended up writing an e-book about it, The New Quislings.

 

Eventually it all died down. But every now and then the whole ugly business flares up again, especially when an anniversary of 7/22 rolls around. Ambitious young ideologues who are eager to kick off a career in politics, writing, media, or the public sector have discovered that a splendid way to do so is to join the pile-on. It’s easy enough to pull off: the point is not to soberly challenge the arguments made by critics of Islam, or to say any[t]hing [sic] remotely original, but to name-call – to smear them as Islamophobes, racists, and “Eurabia conspiracy theorists.” (I’ll explain that last one in a minute.)

 

Meet Axel Fjeld. On July 25, the newspaper Bergensavisen published a long essay by the thirty-year-old, who is studying for his master’s degree in philosophy. The essay was entitled “Is it possible to stop racism?” Its targets were the usual ones. For example, Hans Rustad, editor of document.no, which runs Islam-related news and commentary. Describing document.no as “Breivik’s old hunting grounds” (because he, like thousands of others, used to read it), Fjeld deplores the fact that Rustad has been invited to take part in debates in mainstream media. Similarly, he complains that Fritt Ord, a free-speech foundation, awarded a stipend to the Islam critic Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, a.k.a. Fjordman, whom Fjeld smears as a “genocide ideologist.” In the same way, recycling a years-old leftist gripe, Fjeld rebukes a certain former Aftenposten editor for having actually had a kind word to say about my 2006 book While Europe Slept.

 

Fjeld would have his readers believe that Rustad, Jensen, and I are all racists. He doesn’t make any effort to prove that we are. In fact we are not. I am not a racist, and I have never read a remotely racist word either at document.no or in Jensen’s voluminous writings. Fjeld, then, is barefaced liar. But this is how all of these people operate. We have the facts on our side. They have no good arguments for their position. So all they can do is hurl slurs. Moreover, even as they avoid representing our opinions fairly and honestly, they pretend that we have nothing reasonable to offer, and that they, in fact, are the reasonable ones. And why should reasonable people have to “debate” unreasonable people? As Fjeld puts it: “When we are tempted to debate rationally against opinions that are not based on reason, we cannot achieve anything other than to legitimize the irrational as something that is worth discussing.”

 

Fjeld pronounces it “unbelievable” that the likes of Rustad, Jensen, and me should be given air time or op-ed space in the mainstream Norwegian media. After all, those same media would never “waste time ‘debating’ people who think that the world is flat.” So why, he asks, should they welcome the voices of people who claim “that ‘Muslims are invading Europe,’ ‘it’s only Muslims who rape,’ or ‘dark-skinned people are on average less intelligent than light-skinned people’”? Frankly, I’ve never seen anybody in Norway make the ridiculous assertion that only Muslims commit rape; nor have I witnessed a Norwegian discussion of race and I.Q. (although I’m not discounting the possibility that this thoroughly legitimate question has come up at some point).

 

As for Muslims “invading Europe” – well, for heaven’s sake, Muslims are pouring into the continent, and the consequences are grim. Deny the obvious reality all you want, but no-go zones, forced marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation, and “grooming gangs” exist. Muslim gangs commit rapes and burn cars. Muslim women experience the same oppression in Europe that they did in the Old Country. Muslim immigrants are bankrupting welfare states, resulting in severe cuts to education, elder services, and health care. Islamic terrorism is not a fantasy. European presidents and prime ministers may continue to mouth trite nonsense about the joys of diversity, but their intelligence services are busy monitoring countless terrorist cells and working overtime to keep down the number of jihadist atrocities. Try as hard as you want to connect Breivik to Islam critics, but the fact remains that none of those critics have ever endorsed violence, while Islamic terrorists are doing exactly what the Koran tells them to.

 

For the likes of Fjeld, to discuss any of this honestly is to be a racist, and should be against the law. He explicitly rejects the notion of “the liberal marketplace of ideas” – the belief that it’s healthy to allow the expression of all views, because in the end the strongest argument will win. His own position is that exposing people to what he labels “hate” will only make them less resistant to it. Translation: to allow cogent dissent from the dominant red-green orthodoxy is to risk toppling that orthodoxy. It’s Soviet thinking, pure and simple.

 

Oh, about that “Eurabia conspiracy theorist” business. I don’t know how many people have written books criticizing the rise of Islam in the West, but there are quite a few of us from a range of backgrounds. I assume that most, like me, started writing about the topic because they were observing changes that they found unsettling. If so many writers with such diverse histories are disturbed by the same phenomena, surely that must mean that there is, indeed, something going on out there that merits concern? Years ago, Norwegian leftists came up with a handy way to dodge this question, maintaining that we Islam critics, far from being individuals articulating our own ideas, are, instead, lockstep adherents of a conspiracy theory cooked up by Bat Ye’or, author of the 2005 book Eurabia. Never mind that many of us (myself included) started writing about Islam before we’d even heard of Bat Ye’or; if you read about us in the Norwegian papers – and this includes Fjeld’s article – you will see us identified as “Eurabia writers,” lockstep adherents of the “Eurabia conspiracy theory,” the essence of which is that there is, indeed, such a thing as jihad.

 

Fjeld’s article, in short, is a load of bunk – and an unoriginal load of bunk, at that. In The New Quislings I examined a series of articles by different writers all of whom seemed to be working from exactly the same list of talking points. That doesn’t mean that Fjeld has wasted his time. On the contrary, he’s put his name on the map. He’s made it clear to the powers that be that he’s a good soldier. He’s got the party line down cold, and is willing to spit it out, every bit of it, shamelessly dishonest though it is. As long as he keeps this up, Fjeld, with a little bit of luck, will go straight from grad school into a nice, cushy job at NRK (the state-run TV network), or as a columnist for one of the taxpayer-subsidized mainstream newspapers, or as a writer-researcher at some government ministry, or as an administrator at some tony cultural institution. That’s how the careers of his equally cynical predecessors have gone, anyway, once they’ve taken the obligatory high-profile swipe at critics of Islam: they all end up being well-paid apparatchiks. It will be interesting to see exactly which path Fjeld takes.

__________________

Copyright © 2005-2018 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.

 

About PJ Media

 

For media inquiries, please contact communications@pjmedia.com

 

Since its inception in 2005, PJ Media has been focused on the news that matters — from the insightful commentary provided by our all-star lineup of columnists to our writers’ quick takes on breaking news and trending stories. The media company’s founders — Academy Award Nominee Roger L. Simon, Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) and Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) — brought together a tightly knit band of bloggers into an integrated website that has evolved into a reliable source for original, unique, and cutting-edge political news and analysis.

 

We’ve been there through primaries and general elections; the U.S. border crisis; doctored climate change data; the gunrunners’ scandal; Department of Justice voter fraud and the Ground Zero mosque — stories that others in the media initially passed by.

 

As a company, we’ve always felt a special connection to the values which make America special, as well as a dedication to keeping America great for our children and our children’s children. That’s why our main focus is on the three main areas that will have the most impact on the future of America: politics, parenting and lifestyle.

 

PJMedia.com, the cornerstone of PJ Media, LLC, provides useful and helpful content for everyday Americans — especially parents who are trying to raise their kids in a very confusing and uncertain world. The website offers READ THE REST

 

Europe: Nordic Supremacism vs. Counterjihadism


Making Eurabia

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2015

 

The reason I chose another <<sales narrative>> in the compendium was among other things to prevent them from immediately ending the ideological discussion with their <<6-million-omg-nazi-enough-said>>- bashing stick. I know a lot of people will be disappointed when reading this, but my love for Israel is limited to its future function as a deportation-port for disloyal jews. I am aware of the sad fact that all available statistics confirm that only aprox. Three percent of eurojews oppose multiculti (but from an anti-islamist perspective), and that only approx. 0.2 percent support nordic indigenous rights. I wish it wasn’t so. The reason why so called <<counterjihadists>>, at least the great majority, seemingly <<praise>> Israel, is to avoid the above described suppression-tactic. However, there is in fact a strong anti-nordicist/ethnocentrist wing within the counter-jihad movement, represented by Fjordman and his Jewish network, the EDL-leader, the SIOE-leaders, Wilders, Farage etc., but their organisations are so heavily infiltrated by nordicists and ethnocentrists that it’s hard to say which wing are actually controlling them. (Anders Breivik – Norwegian-to-English translation)

 

The above translated to English quote defines the real difference between Europe’s Neo-Nazi/Fascist movements and the nationalistic Right Wing Counterjihadist movements. The first is nationalistic racism politically and the second is nationalistic cultural preservation that is anti-Islamic (but not maliciously violent racist) and not antisemitic.

 

The Neo-Nazis, which in 21st century, are more likely to describe themselves as advocates of a pure Nordic Supremacist race rather than German Aryan Supremacists of Hitler’s Nazis.

 

European Counterjihadists wish to prevent the immigration of counter-culture Muslims, demand assimilation acceptance standards of resident immigrants, naturalized immigrants and natural born Muslims; or the deportation of Muslims who refuse to respect Western (not necessarily Christian) laws and cultural mores.

 

The European Multiculturalist Left (and their North American Leftist cousins) group Nordic Supremacists and Counterjihadists and call them extremist Right Wing nut jobs. Counterjihadists deplore being grouped with Nordic Supremacists. AND Nordic Supremacist purists deplore Counterjihadists and the Nordicists that swing toward tolerance of Counterjihadists.

 

I sense it is a good guess that Nordic Supremacists contribute to the rising antisemitism in Europe by grouping Left Wing Jews as traitorous Eurojews. I suspect there is no love for Observant Jews either, but I could not tell from the Nordicist Norwegian essayist explaining his belief system. Rather than follow the Hitler Final Solution of annihilation he supports deporting Left Wing Jews to Israel.

 

Contrary to the Nordic Supremacists, the Counterjihadists are quite favorable toward European Jews because Leftist Jews have very much so assimilated to Western Culture and Observant Jews have zero intention of affecting Western Culture or the Rule of Law in any way negatively on the Western nation they have are citizens (probably dwelling therein for many centuries for that matter).

 

Ergo Nordic Supremacists are racists and Counterjihadists are not racists but are promoters of their nationality’s indigenous culture and Rule of Law.

 

I am cross posting the Google English translation of Bjorn Brataas’ essay to get a good snapshot of the differences between Nordic Supremacists and Counterjihadists. I just want to be clear I am in no way supportive of Nordic Supremacism. As far as I am concerned Nordicists are as counter-culture as Islamic Supremacists. BUT it is my belief Americans need to understand what is currently convulsing Europe. Islamic radicalism is bringing more and more voting citizens in Europe toward an affinity of Nordic Supremacism and Counterjihadism. The problem is the standard cross-European voter does not really distinguish between the two movements but are just darn weary of the violent turmoil erupting in their neighborhoods from violent Muslims.

 

European Leftists really control the dispensing of the Rule of Law in Europe primarily through the auspices of the European Union (EU). And as such, Leftists are grouping both movements as Right Wing extremists to keep the voters voting for them. It is my suspicion that Muslim violence will increase in such a way that European voters will eventually vote more and more for the most eloquent nationalist that wishes to prevent Muslim violence. Let the world pray that eloquent anti-Muslim violence representative is a Counterjihadist rather than a Neo-Nazi Nordicist. Counterjihadists will be a positive for the preservation of the heritage of Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian cultural influences. Nordicists will be as culturally disruptive as Islamic Supremacists.

 

JRH 3/2/15

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Fjordman and his Jewish network …” Lest this letter from Breivik?

Anders Breivik Jewed the Jews

 

By Bjorn Brataas

February 22, 2015 6:27 pm

VITNET

[English by Google Translate]

[Also read Gates of Vienna version from Breivik and commentary which is excellent]

 

This letter, i.e. the availability of it – and in English – is now a year and a half old. I did not know about it until I came across it by chance.

 

It is not entirely uninteresting reading. The quote I pasted in the headline is a gold grain itself, though not exactly representative of the rest of the content of the letter.

 

I present text here when one of Witness main functions is to disseminate information that is not readily available – while we trust that the reader has their own judgment and it is up to him whether he “likes” or “dislikes,” or agrees or disagree substance posted. It is this media is all about.

 

[Bjorn Brataas]

—————

Anders Breivik - screen capture from Anders Breivik to Gates of Vienna & International Press

 

Anders Behring Breivik letter 13-09-29 to International Press

 

Explanations, clarifications and the peace proposal – NRK, TV2, Aftenposten, VG and Dagbladet (<<the big five>>), are refusing to consider.

 

The ideology known as <<Nordicism [Metapedia and Wikipedia]>> has two wings; Nordic superiority (NS) and Nordic survival (indigenous rights activism). Being a nordicist of the latter category; my primary purpose is to contribute to secure the survival and prosperity of the Nordic ethnic family (the Nordic, race). National socialists and hitlerists refer to the west-nordic people as the <<Aryan race>>. There are three European races; Nordic (physical characteristics: blonde/blue eyed/longer forehead/etc.), alpine (half nordic/half Mediterranean – f. example the French) and Mediterranean – f. example most people in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece etc.). <<Meds>> are approx. 20 percent Nordic and 80 percent Asiatic. The essence of nordicism isn’t to exclude or discriminate but to strive for the pure Nordic ideal. Wiki Madison Grant [White Supremacist praise of Madison] for more info. Whenever a northern-European nationalist is talking about the genocide, deconstruction or ethnic cleansing of his people, he is talking about the following (illustration box):

 

Overview: The estimated time until extinction for the Nordic ethnic family if our survival is not secured: ethnic composition-13 Nordic countries in percent. Nordic vs. non-nordic. Overview of the 13 largest Nordic countries where Nordics have status as an indigenous people and until recently made out the majority: Germany, England, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Finland, Iceland and Luxembourg.

 

 

Year

 

Nordic (1)

 

Nordic (2)

 

Tot. North.

 

Tot. Non-North.

1900

 

71

 

19

 

90

 

10

1939

 

69

 

16

 

85

 

15

1960

 

62

 

13

 

75

 

25

1990

 

47

 

8

 

55

 

45

2013

 

35

 

5

 

40

 

60

2050

 

14

 

1

 

15

 

85

2100

 

2,9

 

>0.1

 

3

 

97

Nordic (1) = purity: 60-95%
Nordic (2) = purity: <95%+

 

The estimated time until extinction for the Nordic race occurs sometime between 2050 [Blog Editor: Hence the title of Breivic’s PDF document “2083 – A European Declaration of Independence”] and 2100. Presupposes today’s non-nordic immigration of 1% per year, today’s fertility rate, and that Nordics are not granted autonomous indigenous states. The biggest threat is neither African nor Asian immigration, but in fact inter-EEC immigration from members from the Mediterranean ethnic family and from the alpine.

 

When dealing with media-psychopaths

 

And this is where it gets problematic. The <<big five>> and liberal media in general have over the last 68 years developed multiple suppression-tactics for <<handling>> nordicists and other nationalists. Propaganda, or the use of false or exaggerated information for the support of a view or case, has been used for thousands of years to suppress political opposition, and unfortunately it’s quite effective.

 

All research, illustrated by a report published in <<Scientific American Mind>>, Jan/Feb. 2013, shows that the professions; “Media (TV/Radio)” and “Journalists” top the list over the most psychopathic professions, as they are among the most notorious manipulators, liars and deceivers. When a journalist in addition is a leftist, who is tasked with making an <<objective>> characteristic of a <<right wing extremist>>, you know that the result will be everything but credible.

 

The editors of Norway’s <<big five>> are even more leftist than their colleagues in other countries, with exceptions being Sweden and Germany. Most, if not all, of the influential editors are disciples of the 68-revolutions ideals. For example the chief editor in Aftenposten; Haugsgjerd, is a former member of AKP (Workers Communist Party), which used to make <<kill-lists>> of right wing politicians, and several of Dagbladet’s editors are self-proclaimed communists. Unfortunately, Norwegian and northern-European editors are such people. The most influential editors in Norway, for example Stanghelle, Giever, Strand, several in NRK etc., are so influential that they, a small group of no more than 20 editors, literally define reality, in Norway. The editors in NRK, Aftenposten and VG are referred to as <<the Oslo mafia>> by smaller media companies, and are known for their consensus-decisions and left wing orientation. The northern-European media’s zero-tolerance stance towards nationalists the last 68 years has been our greatest problem.

 

Although the British cultural elite admitted in 2008/09 that Nordic brats are in fact indigenous to the UK, their Norwegian colleagues are still refusing to acknowledge the fact that nordic-Norwegians are indigenous to Norway. These 20 editors are simply refusing to discuss the issue, and if you try to stress the issue you will be labeled as a Nazi and held accountable for the Jewish holocaust etc., an effective suppression-tactic.

 

22/7 was an attempt to force these 20 editors, and their colleagues in the other 12 Nordic countries into dialogue with their country’s nordicist-movements (you call them Nazi-movements). The compendium was an experimental approach. I wanted to try a different approach by making it impossible for the MSM in all 13 Nordic countries to end the discussion, using the Nazi-tactic. I was obviously naive enough to think that this approach would lead to a scenario where there could be a serious discussion about the MSMs 68-year witch-hunt and about securing Nordic survival.

 

If I could say anything to the editors in NRK, TV2, Aftenposten, VG, Dagbladet, and their northern-European colleagues, it would be; can we please just skip all the false propaganda and B.S. and focus on solving these issues through dialogue. You can start by announcing a formal apology and declare that the Nordics are indeed indigenous to all 13 Nordic countries. Afterwards, you can accept the invitation to dialogue with the nordicist-movements. Let’s start discussing <<Project Yggdrasil>>. My book; <<The Nordic Federation>> describes this peace-plan through 400 pages, but, it has been blocked by Norwegian prison authorities since 11.07.13. It’s also important to note that <<Project Yggdrasil [Blog Editor: This is the name of a blog devoted to Breivik thoughts. It has been taken down by Blogger probably due to the info found in this pro-Breivik Blog]>> [Blog Editor: What’s the reference to “Yggdrasil”?  Yggdrasil is the Norse mythological Tree of Life] was developed after 22/7 [Blog Editor: 22/7 refers to the date July 7, 2011 in which Breivik is responsible for the slaughter of 77 people – mostly youthful teens] and has nothing to do with the compendium [i.e. his 1500 page manuscript linked above]. Securing the survival of our Nordic race is an issue of utmost urgency. Consider this a formal invitation to reconciliation-talks, talks which should have taken place in 1945. I would have been able to contact the nordicist-leaders in all 13 countries, if it weren’t for the letter ban. Whatever you choose, know that you, the editors, have the influence to decide whether this conflict will end. Be smart, choose dialogue instead of persecution, for the first time in 68 years.

 

The reason I chose another <<sales narrative>> in the compendium was among other things to prevent them from immediately ending the ideological discussion with their <<6-million-omg-nazi-enough-said>>- bashing stick. I know a lot of people will be disappointed when reading this, but my love for Israel is limited to its future function as a deportation-port for disloyal Jews. I am aware of the sad fact that all available statistics confirm that only approx. three percent of eurojews oppose multiculti (but from an anti-Islamist perspective), and that only approx. 0.2 percent support nordic indigenous rights. I wish it wasn’t so. The reason why so called <<counterjihadists>>, at least the great majority, seemingly <<praise>> Israel, is to avoid the above described suppression-tactic. However, there is in fact a strong anti-nordicist/ethnocentrist wing within the counter-jihad movement, represented by Fjordman and his Jewish network, the EDL-leader, the SIOE-leaders, Wilders, Farage etc., but their organisations are so heavily infiltrated by nordicists and ethnocentrists that it’s hard to say which wing are actually controlling them.

 

When dealing with media psychopaths, a good way to counter their tactics is to use double-psychology, or at least so I thought. The compendium was, among other things, of a calculated and quite cynical <<gateway-design>> (the 2+?+?=6 -approach), created to strengthen the ethnocentrist wing in the contra-jihad movement, by pinning the whole thing on the anti-ethnocentrist wing (many of the leaders are pro-multiculti social democrats or liberalists), while at the same time protecting and strengthening the ethnocentrist-factions. The idea was to manipulate the MSM and others so that they would launch a witch-hunt and send their <<media-rape-squads>> against our opponents. It worked quite well.

 

I was never kicked out of Stormfront [Blog Editor: A racist White Supremacist website founded by Don Black – SPLC profile (I usually critical of SPLC because they lump legitimate Conservatives with actual White Supremacist) and ADL profile]. Instead, I attacked them in the compendium in order to protect them, as I knew the authorities would use the fact that I frequented the site, against them, and that an army of leftist journalists otherwise would strike hard. I tried to hint about this double-psychology, by quoting <<war is deceit>> x number of times, but I couldn’t make it more obvious, as it had to be credible to the aggressive army of 2000 media psychopaths (the MSM-rape-squad). The <<hug-your-opponents, kick-the-ones-you-love>>-tactic is one of the oldest in the book. The infiltration of the Freemasons, followed by the publication of the Freemason-pic, was in fact a deliberate and calculated attack against them.

 

Obviously, none of the above would have worked if it wasn’t credible. When I tried to publish three essays describing all of this, on 20.08.12, I was notified about the <<gag-directive>> which came into effect 08.08.12. Apparently, many people didn’t comprehend my deliberate usage of double-psychology, and this is my own fault. In any case, the Fjordman-network figured it out quite early, which explain why they have attacked me so viciously. It wasn’t my intention to cause the outing of Fjordman, with subsequently him being brutally media-raped by 200 MSM-psychopaths. But on the other hand, ethnocentrism gained momentum at the same time as I managed to prevent a significant crackdown against the European and US nordicist movement.

 

There has been an active power-struggle between the two factions within the contra-jihadist movement for years, and the reason why it’s so critically important to dominate and influence this movement is because it acts as a <<supplier of terms>> to moderate European nationalist parties with a base consisting of tens of millions of Europeans. The battle within the <<counter-jihad>>-movement is in many ways a battle for the future content of northern-European nationalism. This makes it even more ironic that many nordicists and ethnocentric nationalists, Stormfront included, still don’t know that I systematically used double-psychology in order to protect them, and in an attempt to prevent the multiculti MSM from using their <<I-win-button>>.

 

Did I serve the nordicist cause more effectively by using this tactic, rather than using rhetoric which would immediately allow them to label me as a Nazi? I believe so, but other than me should be the final judge of that.

 

When dealing with an angry mob of influential journalists and editors representing the worlds most advanced propaganda machinery, you’re fundamentally screwed no matter how you choose to maneuver. Propagandists will not waste a single second on people they do not view as threats. I could have easily avoided excessive pathologisation by keeping the message short and by clinging to the already established ideological cliff of national socialism (it’s important to remember that this was at a time when all right wing radicals were labeled as Nazis), but if they had been allowed to label me as a Nazi, the ideological considerations and discussions would be over, and my court-speeches and propaganda performance would never be broadcasted worldwide, during the trial. Furthermore, people would not be forced to seek answers in the compendium along the way. Regardless of their efforts, I felt I managed to make the best out of an almost impossible situation, despite of the fact that I made a few mistakes during the process.

 

As for my efforts to try to force the editors and ruling politicians in each of the 13 Nordic countries into dialogue with the nordicist-movements, I failed miserably, not surprisingly. It is after all a theoretical impossibility that a single soldier could manage to succeed where potent movements have failed for 68 years. But everyone should know that 22/7 happened in order to try to force a dialogue between the chief editors in the <<big five>> in all 13 Nordic countries, and the so called <<fascist movements>> in the corresponding countries.

 

I remember there was at least one journalist during the trial touching the core of this issue, as he stated; <<The only thing that could prevent the extinction of Nordics are racial hygiene-programmes on a full scale, something which is impossible in today’s multiethnic and multicultural societies. Therefore, it is pointless to enter into dialogue with “these people”. We simply can’t co-exist with them>>. First of all, we are of course fully aware of the fact that you feel you have no other choice than to suppress us, due to this reason. And you have been brutal the past 68 years. This harsh suppression and persecution has driven thousands of nationalists in northern-Europe to suicide, something which explains why these editors don’t like to admit to being responsible for these acts. However, if only more than one out of 5000 Nordic journalists could be this honest, 22/7 and approx. 500 annual nationalist and <<racist>> attacks could be avoided in the future.

 

Of course we understand that full scale racial hygiene-programmes are difficult in today’s societies. But if they had just stopped their bigotry for one second and listened to what we have to say, they would have learned that we can coexist. First of all, one of the reasons the first- and second-generation nordicist leaders have failed with entering into dialogue, is because of their <<all-or-nothing>>-strategy. From a “third-generation” point of view, considering that we lost the European civil war (WW2), the <<all-or-nothing>>-approach has been a complete failure, and continuing this path is counter-productive, irresponsible and may lead to extinction of the nordic race. Changing this to an <<all-or-something>>-approach is the only way to go. One bird in the hand is better than ten on the roof. <<Project Yggdrasil>> is a very good solution and a realistic compromise.

 

I believe I will be able to sell in PY to the vast majority of nordicist-leaders in all 13 Nordic countries, as soon as you lift the letter ban. The message I would send to the chief editors in NRK, TV2, Aftenposten, VG and Dagbladet, is; I ask that you support <<Project Yggdrasil>> in Norway, contributing to a situation where we are allowed to secure nordic-Norwegian survival in <<Norway-Yggdrasil>>, a Norwegian-nordic indigenous state located in Østfold, consisting of two percent of the Norwegian territory. It’s also a very small price to pay in order to end a 68 year old conflict. If an agreement is reached you will be free to transform 98 percent of Norway into your multiethnic and multicultural utopia, without the risk of facing the alternative. This model would succeed in northern-Europe, just as it would succeed on a purely political level – securing peace between <<islamofascists>> on one side, and liberalists/social democrats on the other, in countries such as Egypt and Pakistan.

 

I’m quite sure that project Yggdrasil in Norway, and in the other 12 Nordic countries, would solve a conflict which has been unsolved during the last 68 years. I ask that I’m allowed to present this peace plan to the leading nordicist voices in Norway; Tore Tvedt, Varg Vikernes, Erik Blucher, Nicolay Kvisler and others (no need to target them, as they are all non-militant political activists). Securing Nordic survival is the most important cause for all of us, and I believe they will be willing to abandon their <<all-or-nothing>>-approach, for the sake of a small but sovereign indigenous state.

 

If my assumption is correct, then a peace agreement can be reached within a year, if the chief editors in NRK, TV2, Aftenposten, VG and Dagbladet decide to support the plan, and the same could be a reality for the rest of northern-Europe within two years, if movements in these countries follow.

 

The forming of a parliamentary basis for the founding of this autonomous Norwegian-nordic indigenous state in south-west Østfold will only be possible with the backing of the editors in these five companies, as they define the political agenda in Norway. Not a single parliament member in Norway will ever dare to back project Yggdrasil without the blessing from the editors in these companies.

 

If these editors continue to refuse to have anything to do with me, the above mentioned individuals are all capable. They are the unofficial leaders of the Norwegian nordicist movement, through example, personal sacrifice and continued effort, whether they like it or not. When the Norwegian MSM announced that Fjordman was my role model and idol, they couldn’t be more wrong. These four individuals, on the other hand, are all worthy of trust, respect and praise, due to their past and continued efforts. Their advice and recommendations should be listened to by all Norwegian nationalists. Furthermore, the candidates they support can be trusted. I hope they soon will contribute to take responsibility by uniting the Norwegian nationalist movement by forming an equivalent entity to that of the Swedes Party. The reason I’m saying all of this is because it’s likely I’ll soon be <<out of the game>>, as I won’t be able to survive the SHS-programme for much longer.

 

Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the response from editors to the mentioned information will either be total silence or even more ridicule and pathologisation. After this letter I’ll probably have +2 conditions and +3 personality disorders, or perhaps the imaginary <<bad childhood>> will end up being worse. But before these editors reject <<Project Yggdrasil>>, and of course they will; they should ask them-selves; are you 100 percent sure that dialogue and reconciliation-attempts isn’t the way forward?

 

In any case, their limitless bigotry and denial, until now, has at least been quite amusing.

 

[These were the first 5 pages, the remaining pages haven’t been published in full yet.]

 

[The following quotes were taken from document.no]

 

I have guaranteed and will continue to guarantee that I will no longer propagate violence as a political tool, or for any other reason, as my only plan has been to attempt to become a fascistic “Mandela”, or to contribute to work for Nordics rights in other ways. (Page 10)

 

The reason why I’m so intensely hated by the left, and many others, has little to do with my acts, but everything to do with the “negative” media campaigns which have been, and continue to be carried out. The word “mass murderer” or “mass killer” is used consistently by journalists.

 

These 100 individuals were sons, daughters, fathers and mothers, and their families experienced an equal tragedy to that of the 22/7-families. Both myself and Sønsteby were radical nationalists fighting against foreign enemies and against Norwegians who facilitated a foreign invasion. The only difference was that Sønsteby, uninformed regarding the Labour Party’s future plans concerning forced ethnic and cultural deconstruction (muliticulti), fought to bring the social democrats to power, while I fought against Labour. (s. 16)

 

… a conflict that will continue for decades to come. Why can’t we all get along, and stop acting like angry 12-year olds? We have wanted dialogue with you for 68 years, and you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the Norwegian fascist movement and instead try to label us as nuts and victims of child abuse. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

… tormented until I am pushed to take my own life.

 

Ila is refusing me to move on with my life, despite of exemplary behavior for 27 months, without exception.

 

The 22/7-attacks are today celebrated by the far right in all European countries, either you like it or not, and I have been celebrated as a hero, martyr, role-model and as a source of inspiration by tens of thousands. One of the reasons why more people began to support the reasons for the acts, is because I carried out the trial with dignity, in many people’s eyes, and that I at the same time continuously have demanded that Europe’s political elites, including European mainstream media, must immediately stop treating Norwegian, Nordic and European nationalists and fascists like animals, and instead go into dialogue with us, in order that we are granted a minimum of self-determination.

 

I have the last 27 months proved that the only thing I desire is to be a good role model to others.

 

The large majority of my supporters are, perhaps surprisingly to most, non-militant and non-violent “right-wing radicals”. It would also have ruined every chance to become what I feel obligated to try to be; a non-violent ideologue and a more active politician.

 

Violence is not, and has never been, a part of my ideology. The action was among other things a mean to bring attention to an important cause, and therefore to get a chance to bypass the wall of censorship to propagate important information, but it was not a part of my ideology.

 

It’s correct that the manifesto was a terror manual, like any other ideology’s terror-manuals. But a so called terror-manual is simply propagating means, and is never part of an ideology.

 

In other words I’m not longer a right wing extremist.… (willing to use violence), but a so called right wing radical.

 

The main reason for the fall of Labour, however, was the easily anticipated effect of double-psychology concerning the initial sympathy-phase. It was easy to see that Labour was going to make the critical mistake of misusing this opportunity, which caused significant over-exposure and subsequent antipathy. As a student of history, it was very easy to anticipate these events.

 

Even the Nazis treated Russian prisoners of war and the Jews more humanely, both in Auschwitz – Block 11, and later in Auschwitz-Birkenau. It may be true that the prisoners were forced to work until they couldn’t take it anymore, for economic gain, but they were executed in the most humane manner by zyklon-B-gas. The work able men who behaved exemplary during the stay were rarely subjected to either high- or low-intensive torture. They were all spared the suffering of long-term isolation, and were given the opportunity to be part of a community together with their own. Most of them were later, through humane executions, granted an honorable martyr’s death.

 

And if any of them wanted to end the forced labour, they could at any given time request a painless and honorable martyr’s death, by letting a guard know.

 

Apparently, all the Auschwitz-Jews got off easily, as they were evidently shown a much greater degree of humanism than I have been shown by the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the prison authorities.

 

I showed a greater degree of humanism on 22/7, than what I have been shown after. I did in fact everything in my power to ensure that the 50 AUF-leaders and the 15 regular AUF-members were granted a quick and painless death. I granted them all an honorable martyr’s death, and due to their political sacrifice they were all, and are still, celebrated as champions of the internationalist socialist movement …

 

I would never, even if I was given the opportunity to do so, torture another human being, not even my worst enemy.

 

So if you are not willing to contribute to stop the torture, then you should at least show me the level of humanity that I and the Nazis showed.

 

I cannot kill myself, because my religion does not permit me. Suicide is a cowardly and unforgivable act that must never be considered by anyone. On the other hand, that’s easy for Jesus to say. He only had to hang on the cross for three days, and not 27 months.

 

Islamofascists in the Arab world, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, are treated just as badly as the nationalists in Europe.

 

But I have never hated them, not even now.

 

You have treated me much worse that an animal for 27 months! This is a fate much worse than death, and I would have preferred, if it was possible, to be granted at least the same degree of humanity that the Auschwitz-Jews were shown by the SS, instead of being subjected to abuse and treated worse than an animal for six more months.

_________________________________

Europe: Nordic Supremacism vs. Counterjihadism

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2015

______________________________

Fjordman and his Jewish network …” Lest this letter from Breivik?

 

© 2015 witness. Editor for Vitnet.no is bear Brataas.

 

Blog Editor: Google English translation edited by John R. Houk and spellcheck. Words that I was unsure were left alone as well as the British spelling of English words. I allowed spellcheck to capitalize many words that in my estimation should have been so; however it is possible that Anders intentionally did not capitalize some words. Keep in mind this is an English translation from Norwegian text so I am going to assume Google needed an alternative spelling. Explanatory embedded links are by the Editor.

Norwegian Bjorn Jansen Gets Islam Ideology


Björn Jansen. 4-30-2014

Bjorn Jansen
 
 
John R. Houk
© January 24, 2015
 
Today the Gatestone Institute sent an email update with three essays on it. The first is by Bjorn Jansen and the second and third essays are by Alan M. Dershowitz. To be honest I did not read Dershowitz’s contribution. I immediately was drawn to Mr. Jansen’s essay largely due to his last name. Mr. Jansen’s last name is similar to pseudonymous counterjihad essayist/blogger Fjordman’s actual name. Fjordman’s actual name is Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (Full name from a somewhat uncomplimentary article in Wikipedia).
 
Fjordman has been one of my hero bloggers for years. His name actual name was exposed to the massacre perpetuated by Right Wing semi-Nazi aficionado Anders Breivik who murdered nearly a hundred in Norway with the deluded aim of inspiring a NWO revolution in Europe against Islam and European Muslims. Although Breivik killed mostly teenage Norwegians away at a camp I believe he sought to place the blame on Norway’s growing minority of Muslims. (Here’s a dialogue between myself and an atheist who did his best to associate Breivik with the Christian Right.)
 
Fjordman’s essays apparently were an inspiration for Breivik’s 1500 page manuscript discovered after his arrest. The manuscript lays out a plan for Christian-Odinists (which I equate with Nazi mysticism. Odinism: HERE and HERE) in Europe to rise up and slay Europe’s ruling elite to rid Europe of Muslims. Fjordman’s essays were the most numerous but not the only Counterjihad writer in the mix. Indeed much of Breivik’s manuscript are from the Counterjihadists in which contributes a distorted interpretation of the creation of a Nazi-like nationalist European state. Since Fjordman’s essays standout in Breivik’s manuscript, the multiculturist authorities of Left leaning Norway branded Fjordman as synonymous to Breivik’s agenda. This Norwegian branding of Fjordman led to his arrest, interrogation and confiscation of the Fjordman computer and writings in his home. The Norwegian police of course could not pin their suspicions on Fjordman because a careful reading of the Fjordman essays simply demonstrates an expose Islam nature and there is absolutely no incitement to execute violence against Muslims. However, if you have followed Europe’s concept of Civil Liberties, you would realize that exposing Islam is considered a hate-crime which many European Counterjihadists have had to defend their Free Speech in a Court of Law.
 
So … Anyway, Bjorn Jansen, the author of the Gateway Institute article, made me think of Peder Jensen. Indeed Mr. Jansen’s essay is quite like a Fjordman essay. Bjorn Jansen is a Norwegian politician that seems to have awakened to how Norway’s Muslim minority non-assimilation mentality is harming the native Norwegian culture. Jansen rightly accuses his fellow politicians of looking the other way to preserve their political multiculturalism of accepting all people and religion and that with the correct applied societal aims the diverse cultures will live in harmony. Considering what the Norwegian police did to Fjordman/Peder Jensen, this is quite the courageous stand by a Norwegian politician. Bjorn Jansen even mentions the contributions of European Counterjihad leaders but sadly does not mention Fjordman. I suspect the reason for this failure is because Fjordman has been vilified in Norwegian society as a Right Wing extremist when he is not.
 
Before I move on to the Bjorn Jansen cross post allow me to share some Norwegian Wikipedia info on him. The original is in Norwegian and is translated by Google:
 
Bjorn Jansen (Politicians)
 
Björn Jansen (* 1977 in Aachen) is a German local politician (SPD) and since 2009 acting mayor of Aachen.
 
Life and work
 
Björn Jansen holds a degree in business administration at the RWTH Aachen University and graduated in 2008 with a thesis on “Standardization of IT in the local environment” as a business graduate from. Since 2010 he has worked as a consultant in the energy and water.
 
After years Jansen was previously occurred in the SPD, he was elected at the municipal election, 2004 the Council of the City of Aachen. In 2009, he was able to repeat the success and was also next to Margrethe Schmeer (CDU) and Hilde Scheidt (Alliance 90 / The Greens) voted one of the three mayors. 2014 he was a candidate for the mayoral and was confirmed after losing an election again as Assistant Mayor. In the city of Aachen Council Jansen mainly engaged as Vice Chair of the Finance Committee and as a member of the audit committee.
 
In addition to his party affiliation in the SPD Björn Jansen also belongs to the Supervisory Board of the spa and bathing Aachen Society and the Association of Assembly of the Sparkasse Aachen and Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors in the Student Union Aachen. He is also Chairman of the City Sports Federation Aachen e. V. and since 2011 also president of the newly established Regional Sports Federation Aachen e. V., in which it is the merger of the municipal and local sports organizations in the Aachen region is the Stadtsportbund Aachen.
 
Björn Jansen is married to Daniela Jansen, who in the 2012 state election in North Rhine-Westphalia won a direct mandate for the SPD Aachen. With her ​​he has two children.
 
… (Bjorn Jansen (Politicians); Wikipedia; This page was last modified on 19 June 2014 at 09:32 clock [Translated from Norwegian by Google Translate – Wikipedia links in article removed and indicated by bold text])
 
JRH 1/24/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************
Norway: The People’s Revolution vs. The “Religion of Peace”
 
By Bjorn Jansen
January 24, 2015 at 5:00 am
 
In Norway’s educational system, history is not a valued subject. It is included under either “Social Studies” or “Norwegian.” Many Norwegians are therefore unaware how their society and democracy were formed, or of the enormous prices paid to attain them. Recent generations seem to take them for granted.
 
Norway’s education system is … [Blog Editor: The original text is abbreviated from original because the entirety in the post.]
 
It seems that most people in Europe — in the wake of the Paris massacres at the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket — have either forgotten, or never been taught, that Muslims have invaded Europe several times before. In the Eighth Century, the Moors (Muslims from North Africa) succeeded in conquering Spain and the early medieval French King, Charles Martel, fought and put a stop to the Moors’ invasion of France. It took 800 years to expel Islam from Spain; the final expulsion of the Moors from Andalusia occurred 1494. Later, the Ottomans made it to the gates of Vienna in 1683. How has Islam’s nature and history in Europe been forgotten?
 
Norway, like many other countries in Europe after World War II, has built up an expansive welfare state. It is based on the principle of shared values, shared goals and shared faith in the state. Historically, Norway has prided itself in being a largely classless society with a large middle class, and only a small upper class or nobility.
 
In Norway’s educational system, history is not a valued subject. It is included either under the umbrella of “social studies” or “Norwegian.” This downgrading, combined with the erosion and virtual removal of Christianity from the education system, means that many are unaware of how their society and democracy were formed, or of the enormous prices paid to attain them. Recent generations seem to take them for granted.
 
The development of the West, which began with Socrates in Athens; then proceeded to rule of law based on verifiable evidence and equal justice from Rome; then the theological debate that preceded the Reformation and the Renaissance; the Enlightenment and the growth of science — all of these, over hundreds of years, have shaped constitutions and created today’s democratic societies. Today’s constitutions, legal systems, codes of ethics, and even desired values for children, are based on the values and qualities expressed in both the Old and New Testament, but most young people are not aware of this.
 
Islam is an ideology. All nations have their own, although this may not be obvious to those who are born and brought up in them. What, then, is Norway’s post-war ideology (or idealism), and how does it permeate Norway’s society today?
 
Before large amounts of oil began to be extracted in the 1970s, Norway was largely a monocultural society. However, the last 40 years have been a high-speed transition to a multicultural society, whose previous solidarity and joint values are now being broken down and questioned by parallel and, in the case of Islam, some widely opposing values and goals.
 
With immigration comes a larger gap between the poorest and richest than before, but Norway retains its strong social values of equality and its dream of solidarity — perhaps a key reason why socialism still has such a strong hold on the country.
 
Norway’s education system is permeated in an idealistic vision of equality and a belief in cultural relativism: that everyone, every culture and every religion are of the same value. Schools and even preschools are obliged to work toward wiping out class differences. As the state opposes the idea of private schools, there is virtually no alternative to the state school. The majority of teachers are idealists who believe in the idealism they are obliged to preach.
 
Cultural and religious relativism prevail. Islam is presented in schoolbooks as “just another religion.” Key practices, such as washing before praying, and praying five times a day, are presented; but Mohammed’s biography, Islam’s ideology and agenda, the concept of the kafir [infidel] and all its aggressive contents are brushed under the carpet. Islam is presented as an attractive religion, not an ideology, and is portrayed as if has already been reformed, a situation that is just not the case.
 
There is no tradition of debate clubs in Norway; the result is pressure for consensus of views and thoughts. To debate, in England, is considered an art. Many schools have debate clubs, and there is no harm seen in disagreeing strongly, then still going after to the pub. In Norway, in the workplace, to disagree is not always a safe option. To express an opinion that runs against the stream can be associated with “being difficult,” “argumentative,” and that what you think is “wrong,” with unpleasant overtones of “you are wrongly programmed.”
 
Norway’s politicians are both younger and less experienced than their European counterparts, who mostly enter politics later in life after a career in business. Few of Norway’s politicians have an international perspective from higher education or a career apart from politics. Many have gone straight into politics from student days. They are raised in a society with a small population entrenched in a socialist consensus, and that presses for conformity. How then does one express dissent in a country whose politicians and media are rooted in socialist thinking; where discussing religion is a no-go; where politics has replaced religion, and where there is a small population ensuring conformity of thought, with the risk of being sanctioned for expressing other thoughts?
 
Most of the media has the same socialist outlook as Norway’s politicians. There is either complete ignorance or a blind refusal to go to the root of Islamic terrorism, or how Islam’s doctrine effects the socialisation, mindset and actions of Muslims. Despite the existence of informative, independent websites such as document.no and rights.no, the media refuses even to look at Islam’s doctrines.
 
Rather than investigate Islam for themselves, politicians in Norway have put their blind faith in what the imams in Norway say is Islam. Likewise Islamsk Råd, The Islamic Council of Norway, has been given media space to determine what Islam is or is not.
 
The last three years have seen an explosion in the knowledge of Islam by the man-in-the street, largely thanks to the internet, and inspired by key figures such as Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Brother Rachid and Norway’s own Hege Storhaug. While no voice critical of Islam gets coverage in the media, recent coverage in the media of Germany’s populist PEGIDA movement (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West) has already started changing this lapse.
 
PEGIDA was started in Dresden last October by Lutz Bachman, who stepped down on January 21, 2015, after a photo of him posing as Hitler surfaced. Its wildfire popularity throughout Europe in just three months or existence seems due to the politicians’ and media’s neglect of their populace — especially the media’s refusal or inability to undertake independent investigative journalism.
 
Left-World Islamic Mission-Oslo - Right-Ubaydullah Hussain-Norway Islamist 
 
People are now discussing what exactly is preventing the European media from going to the root of Islam — discussing which elements of Islam’s key scriptures (the Koran, the sira and the hadith) are at conflict with the non-Muslim world.
 
If the media and politicians admit there is a problem, they will be forced to retract their belief in multiculturalism and apologize for voluntarily allowing a change in Norway’s demographics, with potentially many violent outcomes. They might have to admit that the media and politicians know of the dangers of Islam’s doctrines but do not dare to publish them; that maybe they have been collectively threatened and are afraid of the consequences. Other countries’ media might be afraid to talk about Islam’s doctrines because of their dependence on oil from the Middle East, but this is not the case for Norway.
 
PEGIDA’s followers can trigger a sorely needed debate on the unopened Pandora box of Islam’s doctrines. They can also ask questions that need to be asked, but that neither politicians nor the media have so far had the guts to ask. Caricatures and cartoons are only the symptom; we need to get to the root.
_____________________
Norwegian Bjorn Jansen Gets Islam Ideology
John R. Houk
© January 24, 2015
____________________
Norway: The People’s Revolution vs. The “Religion of Peace”
 
Bjorn Jansen is a journalist based in Norway.
 
Copyright © 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.
 
Edited by John R. Houk
 

Countering the Smear against Fjordman


Fjordman by Simen Sætre bk jk

 Simen Sætre 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

The Media Myths

 

Posted by Baron Bodissey

Posted: April 29, 2013 8:40 PM

Gates of Vienna

 

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  clip_image001

_________________________

Countering the Smear against Fjordman

John R. Houk

© May 10, 2013

______________________

The Media Myths

 

A Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad

 

Fjordman Essays on Gates of Vienna

Is Anders Behring Breivik the Nordic Che Guevara?


Che 1959 - BHO 2008

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)

Please Support NCCR

*********************************

Is Anders Behring Breivik the Nordic Che Guevara?

 

By Fjordman

Oct 5th, 2012

FrontPage Magazine

 

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

Counter-Jihad Writing is Expose Islam Rather than Hate Muslims


What the West Needs to Know about Islam

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

Please Support NCCR

Fjordman: The Bias and Dishonesty of Wikipedia


Wikibias logo

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)

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Fjordman: The Bias and Dishonesty of Wikipedia

 

By Fjordman

19 June 2012

EuropeNews

 

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.

____________________________

EuropeNews Homepage

 

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.

 

Read Entire About Page

Fjordman Tackles Testimony in Breivik Massacre Trial


APTOPIX Norway Massacre Trial

John R. Houk
© June 2012
 
I am a huge fan of the essayist Fjordman. Ever since the massacre in Norway by Norwegian Anders Breivik, Fjordman has been at the focal point of the blame game by Norwegian multiculturalists. Fjordman has been a pseudonym that was exposed to the public because of Breivik’s massacre. Why was a pseudonym necessary?
 
Islamic hatred is much stronger and dangerous in all of Europe than in America. One that exposes Islam in Europe runs the danger of arrest by the government (national and/or EU government) for hate-speech as defined by the freedom disenfranchisement of Multiculturalist laws that seems to protect everything except Christianity. The government is the one hand. The other hand is that Islamic hatred causes the constant threat of violence and death threats by Muslims living in Europe as immigrants or as 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims adopting a European nation BUT demanding to live the culture of intolerant Islam.
 
This means even under a pseudonym Fjordman had to have bodyguards to protect his life from Muslim death threats.
 
As soon as police authorities began to scrutinize Breivik’s 1500 page manuscript of hate it became clear that Breivik utilized the essays of prominent expose Islam/anti-jihad writers as a huge amount of manuscript content. Guess what? Fjordman is a Norwegian citizen. Instead of examining Fjordman’s essays the Norwegian authorities simply appeared to assume Fjordman was part of some terrorist conspiracy that Breivik attached himself to. The result of authority examination of Fjordman he has lost his anonymity. In his latest post or at least the latest post I have found Fjordman himself uses his actual name of Peder Jensen. I have been reluctant to use Jensen’s real name because the last time I read the actual name it was an exposé of a hit piece.
 
I am so used to the pseudonym I will probably continue to use that rather than Jansen unless “Fjordman” is abandoned.
 
Fjordman was going to an interview with Norwegian police via the Internet through Skype or something like that. Then it became clear the police would release to the public the testimony of Multiculturalist expert testimony but not that of those that expose the truth of Islam.
 
Fjordman took it upon himself to answer the list of probable questions that would have been answered. Below is the English translation of the answered questions as it appeared on Gates of Vienna.
 
JRH 6/14/12
 
******************************
Fjordman’s Suggested Testimony for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik
 
As regular readers know, a few days before his scheduled appearance Fjordman withdrew his offer to testify by skype at the trial of Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo. The defense team had sent him a list of potential questions, which prompted the preparation of the responses published below (in both Norwegian and English).
 
By Fjordman
Posted by Baron Bodissey
6/12/2012 01:22:00 AM
 
Suggested Testimony for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik
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.

clip_image001

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. Continue reading “Fjordman Tackles Testimony in Breivik Massacre Trial”

Breivik, European Free Speech and American Free Speech


Mo & Aisha k-i-s-s-i-n-g

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2012

 

The essayist Fjordman is an instrumental writer to expose the dark side of Islam to the Western world. Back in July 2011 mass murderer/terrorist Anders Breivik killed men, women and children under the delusion it would begin a grassroots paradigm (One may have to log into Google to read this link) that would take down Left oriented governments of Europe and replace them with a new European order that would employ a warped vision of Christianity to remove Muslims from Europe. Breivik built his warped paradigm on the backs of legitimate writers and politicians that have caught onto the nature of the dark side of Islam. That dark side incidentally is something that cannot coexist peacefully with the Western heritage of Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman civilization that has developed into a civilized world of representative governments, Civil Rights and a socio-political society that differences are usually settled with legislation and an effective judicial system. I am a bit prejudiced but I have to say the United States of America has arisen to the highest level of this Western heritage. (That’s why everyone wants to move here even when they hate America.)

 

The act of terrorism that Breivik did was ghastly horrible. AND one the side effects was to give ammunition to Left Wing Multiculturalists that anti-jihad writers are nothing but extremist Right Wingers that promote hate and incite Islamophobia to the point of bigotry and violence. There were a host of anti-jihad writers that Breivik plagiarized and quoted for his master plan, but it seemed that Norwegian Fjordman was a large focus of inspiration that turned to twisted goals. It is one thing to expose Islam. It is quite another thing to breed hatred toward Muslim believers as a whole. I think Islam is evil myself; however under the principles of religious freedom and Free Speech Islam must be free to be practiced as long as the theo-political nature of Islam does not itself inspire Muslims to do the very same thing that Breivik did.

 

Unfortunately Europe does not have the same parameters of Free Speech that America has. God help America if our nation begins to dilute Free Speech as Europe has. In Europe a Christian can be slapped with the accusation of a hate crime by openly promoting Biblical morality if it offends non-Christians or practitioners of alternate lifestyles. Such warped limitations on Free Speech in Europe have already occurred.

 

** Äke Green: Pastor Äke Green of Sweden was convicted of hate crimes for preaching that homosexuality is a sin in 2004. Pastor Green’s conviction was overturned in Swedish Appellate Court in 2005, but if I was a betting man I am guessing Sweden has strengthened their hate crime law limiting Christianity. (SlantRight.com article posted in 2007)

 

** André-Mutien Léonard: Belgian homosexual activists have brought charges against Mgr André-Mutien Léonard, the Roman-Catholic bishop of Namur, for homophobia, a criminal offence in Belgium according to the country’s 2003 Anti-Discrimination Act. In an interview last April in the Walloon weekly Télé Moustique, the bishop is said to have described homosexuals as “abnormal” people. According to Michel Graindorge, the activists’ lawyer, the bishop intended to “stigmatize” homosexuals, whose “identity and dignity is debased from the moment that the bishop considers them to be abnormal.” (SlantRight.com article posted in 2007)

 

** Christian Vanneste: Last January Christian Vanneste, a member of the French parliament (who has just been reelected), was convicted for homophobia by a French court. Mr Vanneste had said that “heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality” and that “homosexuality endangers the survival of mankind.” (Brussels Journal 2007)

 

** Susanne Winter: Vienna — Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam’s prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter’s home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported. (Gates of Vienna 1/22/09)

 

** Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: There is now a conviction against Austrian citizen Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (ESW), who stood trial on a charge of “incitement to hatred” at a series of seminars educating about political Islam and the challenges we face. The case was closed on February 15th 2011 by judge Bettina Neubauer, who gave the following verdict to ESW, who was also convicted of being a “Repeat offender”, in spite of this conviction being her first:

 

·         Acquitted on the charge of incitement to hatred

 

·         Convicted for denigration of the teachings of a legally recognized religion.

 

·         Punishment: 120 day fines for a total of 480 euros.

 

 

 

After having gone through this material at the first two hearings, the audience of the case had a clear expectation that ESW would be acquitted of the charges and have her name cleared. But at the end of the second hearing, the judge added an unexpected twist to the case:

She inquired of ESW about her comments that the actions of Muhammad would today be considered ‘paedophilia’. While ensuring a nod of approval from the prosecutor, she then extended the charges to also encompass “Denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion”. (Gates of Vienna 2/18/11 READ ENTIRITY)

 

Judge Leo Levnaic-Iwanski upheld the verdict of the lower court, which convicted Elisabeth on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” (Gates of Vienna 12/20/11)

 

 

The Superior Court confirmed the verdict, although with a somewhat different reasoning. While the lower court regarded pedophilia as factually completely unjustified, the higher court judged the remark “liked a little something with children” to be an extreme evaluation. Only the isolated explanation that Mohammed had sex with a child was allowable.

In supporting the verdict, there was explicit reference to the Winter case and the disposition of the European Court of Justice: (Gates of Vienna 1/28/12 READ ENTIRITY)

 

** Geert Wilders: Fitna and some of the speeches delivered by Wilders hit the European concepts of political correctness, multiculturalism and diversity right smack in the groin. The Leftists of Europe and the Muslims of Europe (which are more radicalized than many would dare to comment on) went in violent seizures that someone would dare speak out against people that are divergent from Western Culture.

 

 

HERE IS THE THING. GEERT WILDERS HAS BEEN ACQUITTED IN THE DUTCH JUDICIAL SYSTEM! (SlantRight 2.0 6/26/11 READ ENTIRITY)

 

European Hate Speech Laws

 

 

In large part, the movement to circumscribe the bounds of free expression has its roots in three instruments of international law—the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Discrimination (CERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 10 of the ECHR, for example, grants the freedom of expression to all, but the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary, inter alia, “for the protection of the reputation and rights of others.” The CERD and ICCPR, which also purport to recognize the freedom of expression, go a step further. Article 4(a) of the CERD obligates signatories to make “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred” a punishable offense, while Article 20 of the ICCPR requires outlawing “any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.”

 

Given the nebulous standards on which much of Europe’s hate speech laws are based—indeed, there is not even a universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes hate speech—it is little wonder that such legislation has ensnared speech it was likely never meant to punish. Delineating the line between speech that is considered rude and that which is considered insulting for the purposes of criminal prosecution is an utterly subjective undertaking, and a distinction that governments are ill-suited to determine. Compounding the problem of these laws’ arbitrariness is their selective application: while European authorities have at times appeared reluctant to go after Islamist firebrands spouting hatred, those engaging in legitimate debate about Islamism are frequently targeted for prosecution. Examples abound: (The Legal Project © 2012 READ ENTIRITY)

 

I am sure There are other cases Left Wing Multicultural persecution of truth tellers especially related to Islam. The cases above are the ones I have been most familiar with over the years. I did not even mention cases in Canada which has a comparable Free Speech infringement in the similitude of Europe.

 

The horrendous terrorist murders perpetrated by Anders Breivik has thrown a monkey wrench into liberating Free Speech in Europe. Because of Breivik the anonymity pursued by Fjordman was exposed as Norwegian authorities began shining a light because Breivik based a large amount of his deviant epic on Fjordman’s writings.

 

Anders Breivik is now in the middle of his trial in Norway. Breivik has been found insane by a couple of psychiatric experts. Especially in Europe a successful insanity defense will keep Breivik out of prison. Breivik would be committed to a psych ward.

 

Here is the remarkable twist. Breivik does not want to be declared legally insane and escape prison. He wants to be prosecuted as a person acting on political ideology rather than insanity. Of course that sounds insane. There will be no acquittal for Anders Breivik. Here is a glimpse of the Breivik legal defense team goal:

 

Defense attorneys for confessed terrorist Anders Behring Breivik have confirmed that former guerrilla leader Mullah Krekar and anti-Muslim blogger Peder Jensen, better known as “Fjordman,” are among the roughly 35 persons they’re calling to testify during Breivik’s trial. The goal is to prove that Breivik, like Krekar and Jensen, is driven by political ideology, not insanity, and therefore can be held responsible for his attacks. (Krekar, ‘Fjordman’ called to testify; Views and News from Norway, 4/3/12)

 

As I asserted, I have no doubt that Breivik will be convicted under this legal defense and spend the rest of his life in jail.

 

Here’s the problem though. If the Breivik defense team is successful in waving a declaration of insanity and is convicted for political ideology, then all European anti-jihad writers and politicians will find themselves in a legal pickle. This is especially the case for Fjordman because he is a Norwegian citizen.  If Breivik is convicted for political thoughts as well as for murder then Fjordman would be an accomplice to the crimes of murder perpetrated by Breivik.

 

The reasoning will have nothing to do with whether or not Fjordman helped Breivik in the demented scheme to bring change to Europe. Fjordman could be judged guilty of inspiring Breivik to formulate his plan. It is the old anti-Free Speech ploy of assigning incitement to perform hate crimes via Fjordman (and others) writings.

 

Friends, this is not good for Free Speech or Religious Freedom!

 

If Breivik’s legal team is successful in waving a declaration of insanity, the best thing that could happen for Free Speech is for the Prosecution to pursue a case of murder in whatever degree that Norway utilizes (No death penalties in Europe). If independent thought via writing is attached to murder charges it will not bode well for Fjordman’s Free Speech and it will not bode well for Free Speech in all of Europe. There is an extension here as well. European law has been creeping in the American judicial system due to Left Wing activist judges who ignore that a foreign legal precedent quite probably would be unconstitutional in the good old USA.

 

The legal wrangling going on in Norway may not be getting a lot of press in America; however legal decisions there just might affect the rule of law in America. After all, our President has shown a predisposition to ignore the Constitution. Limiting Free Speech because of unconstitutional hate speech laws is not beyond the pale of America’s Left.

 

JRH 4/5/12

_______________________________

Support NCCR

Fjordman the Victim


Fjordman - Peders Jensen 8-2011 Close-Up

 

John R. Houk

© August 11, 2011

 

One of my favorite essayists is a Norwegian gentleman that went by the pseudonym Fjordman. Among other studies Fjordman has been an anti-Jihadist writer warning of the dark side of the religion Islam. I have used Fjordman essays in many cross posts myself. Most would classify my anti-Jihadist writings and my support of anti-Jihadist writers as the work of a no-name blogger. This actually doesn’t bother me because very few notice when frustration might push me over the edge in descriptive hostility toward Islam. If you are one that reads any of my blog posts you would notice a bit of wavering in labeling all of Islam as a death-cult or only the practitioners of purist Muslims called Islamic terrorists, Islamists, Islamofascists, Salafists, Wahhabist, Deobandis and probably some that I cannot recall currently.

 

My wavering is the result of the reality that the later groups in Islam are the real reformers in that religion. Purist Muslims have a desire to return to the days of Mohammed’s atrocities and the atrocities of the so-called first four rightly-guided Caliphs that may have actually exceeded the Prophet’s atrocities. Purist Muslims interpret the Quran, Hadith and Sira in the light of the early days of history and the formation of these holy writings from oral to written text.

 

At any rate the man I consider one of the most scholarly of non-Muslim intellectuals willing to shed political correctness is being scrutinized by the Norwegian police for inciting Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik to execute his Norwegian Massacre.

 

Why?

 

Breivik put together this 1500 page or so manuscript of which very little was actually original. Breivik borrowed from numerous notable anti-Jihadist writers to extrapolate a warped vision of Crusader Christians modeled after his interpretation of the Knights Templar. Breivik’s warped version of Christianity was to be the uniting symbolism to bring in a New European Order that would force Muslim immigrants to leave. The problem with Breivik’s New European Order was his plan adopted terrorist tactics against the ruling elite or to make the ruling elite to look bad to inspire ordinary Europeans to rise up to throw Liberal-Multiculturalist ruling elites out. Thus Norway experienced the slaughter of seventy or so Norwegians of young and old as part of a plan to terrorize the New European Order into existence.

 

Breivik plagiarized many anti-Jihadist writers; however it is apparent the essayist Fjordman was his favorite by the large amount of the copy and paste citations. Breivik’s naming of literary heroes has placed Fjordman as a potential favorite target to not only blame for the Norway Massacre but also to possibly indict him for criminal activity.

 

Is that crazy or what?

 

I learned in an Andrew Bostom article that the police interviewed and confiscated his computer. It looks to me like the persecution of free speech is beginning to take on a police state motif in Norway. Hmm … It could be Breivik’s massacre might actually lead to a test of free speech between free speech limiting Multiculturalists and the few Liberty-minded European Conservatives that exist. It is a good thing that Geert Wilders’ trial on hate-speech ended favorably for him before the Norway Massacre or he might be in the European slammer today.

 

The one tragedy you should be aware before you read about Fjordman interviews with the police and a Norwegian media outlet is that Fjordman is no longer an anonymous writer. Because of police investigations Fjordman gave an interview to Verdans Gang in which he publicly reveals his actual name believing the police investigation would eventually reveal it anyway.

 

Literary hero Fjordman is Peder Jensen.

 

JRH 8/11/11