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 weredefined 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.
Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your background?
My real name is Peder Jensen. I have posted articles on the Internet under the pseudonym Fjordman since February 2005. I initially started writing articles on my own blog, but from 2006 I have guest-blogged on other websites, usually in English, although some of my texts have been translated into several different languages.
I was born and raised in Ålesund. I am a university graduate having studied English, taking exams in history with an emphasis on Norwegian history, world history, Middle Eastern and Chinese history. I began studying the Arabic language at the University of Bergen, Norway and continued with these studies at the American University of Cairo in Egypt in 2001.
I worked for the Norwegian-led observer group TIPH in the Palestinian city of Hebron in 2002 and most of 2003. This was partly coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but I was formally employed by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), then led by the current party secretary of the Norwegian Labor Party, Raymond Johansen. One of my bosses in Hebron was Arnstein Øverkil, former head of the Police Security Service (PST). I took a master’s degree at the University of Oslo in culture and technology in 2004, writing a master’s thesis on blogging in Iran.
I have entertained the idea of taking a PhD in topics related to Internet censorship, but I haven’t pursued this idea so far. I deliberately decided not to embark on a career in the NRC, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar organizations, partly for political reasons. I had become highly critical of Islam and found it increasingly difficult to work for organizations which I found to be too pro-Islamic.
There are many decent people working for the NRC who do a good job, but the organization’s condemnation of the Danish Muhammad cartoons made it virtually impossible for me to continue working for them. I interpreted their response to this incident as a clear submission to sharia law, Islamic intimidation and censorship, and I couldn’t accept that.
What was your reaction to the July 22 attacks? You decided to contact the Norwegian police?
At the time of the attacks, in the summer of 2011, I was working part-time at a center for individuals with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome. This was a decent job with decent individuals, but as a part-time job it also gave me the flexibility to focus on my writing while at the same time paying the most basic bills. The people I worked with there knew absolutely nothing about my blogging activities.
I was living in Oslo on July 22. By July 23, literally overnight, I had become the country’s second-most hated person due to the actions of a mentally unbalanced man I have never met. This was an absurd situation that was very difficult to handle. Some of my friends advised me to leave Norway immediately, but I considered this to be cowardice. People who run away also tend to look guilty, and I had done nothing criminal.
After discussing it with friends and family, I decided to contact the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST). I physically visited their national headquarter in Nydalen in Oslo on July 27, where I introduced myself by my real name. They told me that they were busy and asked me instead to send them an email, which I did. They then referred me to the regular police.
After consulting with my lawyers at the law firm of Staff, I voluntarily reported at the Manglerud Police Station in Oslo on August 4, 2011 accompanied by attorney Knut Ditlev-Simonsen. At that time neither the police authorities nor the Norwegian mass media had the slightest idea who I was, even though police attorney Kraby claimed otherwise.Read the rest of this entry
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.
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.