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

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

New York Times reader kills dozens in Norway


Ann Coulter

 

Ann Coulter nails Leftists in the media as well as Leftists in general that have deceptively associated Anders Breivik with Bible believing Christians and Anti-Jihad/Anti-Islamist writers in America. Coulter takes aim at the big dog of newspaper rags the New York Times. BREIVIK WAS NO BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN!

 

JRH 7/28/11