Journalist resource: So, what’s the deal with Fjordman?

The identity of Fjordman has been revealed. He revealed it himself, realising that media would sooner or later figure out who he is. Personally, I don’t find his identity all that interesting, but it is a good thing that we now know. Just yesterday, someone else was “exposed” as being Fjordman on wikipedia, and in journalist circles in Norway, there’s been several rumours.

Some of these rumours have been outright laughable, one of them pointing at a fellow who has battled conspiracy thinking for years. Others have been more plausible, at least pointing at people who share a considerable number of ideological ideas with Fjordman, people who have bought into the same kind of conspiracy thinking as him. The fact that Fjordman’s identity is now known will stop that rumour mill, and that’s all for the better.

What’s interesting about Fjordman, however, isn’t his identity, but his ideas; and I would recommend that journalists writing about them also take the time to check out some of his articles. Almost 40 of Fjordman’s essays have been included, in full, in the Norwegian terrorist Anders B. Breivik’s manifesto, and reading those essays will not merely give you an insight into Fjordman’s thinking, they will give an insight into the ideas which inspired the terrorist atrocities.

Gates of Vienna – one of the central blogs in the “counterjihad” universe – now writes:

Fjordman is the best of us. He is not just a brilliant scholar and a fine writer, but also the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met. He is a man of utmost integrity, and it shines through in his dealings with others as well as in the millions of words he has written.

Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, who included an essay of Fjordman in his book “Selvmordsparadigmet”, seems to also think quite highly of Fjordman, but in the Norwegian radio program Dagsnytt 18 earlier today, he did note that the rhetorics of Fjordman is “too hard”. I’ve got a newsflash for Anfindsen: The main problem with Fjordman is not his rhetorics, but his ideas. And I will point to a few examples.

Let’s start with Fjordman’s essay “Native Revolt: A European declaration of independence”, one of the many included in the terrorist’s manifesto, which – incidentally – carries almost same name, but with “2083″ added to it. Fjordman wrote this essay in 2007. It’s long – like most of his essays. It’s angry, too, like most of them. It’s an essay worth reading, if you want to get a glimpse of “the utmost integrity” of Fjordman. Let’s start with Fjordman’s opinion of the European Union:

Why is this pan-European EU dictatorship still functioning? Because seeing is believing. Most Europeans still don’t know that EU leaders are using their money without their consent to merge Europe with the Arab world because their media don’t tell them this.

Now, that’s actually a very good summary of Fjordman’s conspiracy thinking. The European Union, one of the largest democratic experiments in world history, is a dictatorship. Its leaders are allegedly using our money to “merge Europe with the Arab world”. And the media is in on the conspiracy, too, since it doesn’t tell us anything about it. But, to be sure, the conspiracy theory goes deeper than just that. On the news blog (which is very critical of current immigration policies, and of Islam, but which does not belong in the “counterjihadist” category), both Fjordman and the terrorist Anders B. Breivik commented on the same post in November 2009, a post on the minaret ban in Switzerland, and on reactions to this. Below, you will find a translation into English. If you’re looking for the original Norwegian, you will find it in another recent post at my blog.

First, the terrorist:

This is only the beginning of a long-lasting campaign of psychological warfare against the Swiss [written with capital S in Norwegian, too, which is a break with grammatical rules suggesting a somewhat unhealthy reverence with national states]. The worst thing of it all, is that this is very effective, as we saw with Austria a few years back. The Swiss people will cave for the demonisation, like the Austrians and the Serbs before them. The fact that European and American mainstream media, 95% of the NGOs and 80% of the political parties are all controlled by cultural marxists is possibly the foremost reason for us having to suffer multiculturalism (cultural marxism) and islamisation for at least another 20-70 years. [...]20 years at the earliest is my bet (70 years at the max). So, change will come, it’s guaranteed, we will just have to be patient.

(Do note that the idea of “Cultural Marxism”, too, is lifted from Fjordman).

Then Fjordman:

My prediction is that the European Union will apart from the inside within 20 years, and that there is a full-scale civil war in at least one European country before this happens. Sooner or later common people will discover that the European Union and European leaders have already decided – behind the backs of the population – that a continued Muslim colonisation of our continent is to be given free reins. This is the largest betrayal throughout world history, and it is infathomable that our socalled critical press, including the largest newspaper VG, does not write a single word about it. The fact is that Western leaders are conducting demographic and judicial warfare against the white majority population in Western countries in order to break them down, all to the benefit of an authoritarian, post-democratic world order with themselves at the top.

Now, please note that this is not merely an anti-Islamic ideology. The ideology is anti-Western. Fjordman really believes that there’s a grand conspiracy which includes leading politicians and the media. Here he is 100% in agreement with Breivik, or – to be precise – Breivik is in 100% agreement with him. Now, of course Fjordman claims – both as Fjordman and as Peder Jensen – that he has never encouraged violence. Well, frankly, I don’t think you have to. If you’re saying that Jens Stoltenberg, for instance, is actually a worse traitor than Quisling, if you’re saying that Europe is being occupied and colonised, if you’re saying that politicians, journalists and academics – across the political scale – are willingly playing a part in this… if you’re saying all of this, politically motivated violence does not seem like an absurd idea; the step onto violence is not a very far one.

That said, in his “declaration”, Fjordman poses a number of demands. He does this, of course, on the behalf of “we”, “the European peoples”, a rather megalomaniac concept for an anonymous blogger from a small town in Western Norway to throw around. The demands include the dismantling of the European Union, trials against people having taken part in the alleged conspiracy and betrayal, a process of “de-Eurabification”, a halt in all Muslim immigration to Europe (regardless of cause), etc. And if these demands are not met, Fjordman writes – in 2007 – then “we”, “the European peoples”, must conclude:

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn’t dismantled, Multiculturalism isn’t rejected and Muslim immigration isn’t stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.

Now, of course, Fjordman never tells us what these “appropriate measures” actually are. But to pretend that the problem with this text is “rhetorics”, well, that’s rather poorly played by mr. Anfindsen, and this should be rather clear.

Of course, it doesn’t stop there. Fjordman has written a large number of essays, covering a large number of topics. In one of them, “The Coming Crash“, he attacks the United States. It’s an interesting example of his writings, because of the overt racism in it. Once again, the problem is ideas, not merely rhetorics.

If the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire then the USA is the Diversity Empire, committed to spreading Multiculturalism and genetic Communism around the world, especially to white majority countries.


When I see how Nidal Hasan was treated by the US military I don’t think I want these people involved in my affairs. They would probably say that native Euros are Nazis who oppress the poor Muslims. Then they would bomb us and say it is for our own good, just like they did to the Serbs. The United States will not survive this century. It will be split into several countries according to ethnic, racial and perhaps even ideological lines. There is no such thing as a universal nation. People want to live with their own kind. The only ones who are not allowed to do so are whites, and they are starting to get tired of this double standard.


Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. It’s about time that whites reclaim the same right without apology. I am increasingly convinced that the developments we are witnessing are deliberate. The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every Western country. I’ve had some discussions about this with my friend Ohmyrus who thinks this is about a structural failure in our political system. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but I also believe there is a planned long-term goal of breaking down all white majority nations to create a new global oligarchy. Anti-white ideologies are now taught in every Western university and were arguably elevated to national ideology in the USA with the election of Obama.

His friend Ohmyrus is, by the way, a Chinese blogger arguing the ills of democracy. Now, Fjordman says that he does not necessarily agree with that, but in his book “Defeating Eurabia” he approvingly quotes a British blogger who notes that “this is an existential war”, and “if this means that we need to suspend parliamentary democracy for the duration — so be it”.

Let me point to another essay by Fjordman, another one which Breivik decided to include in his cut-and-paste-manifesto. The essay is called “The Failure of Western Feminism“. In it Fjordman notes:

The truth is that any nation is always protected from external aggression by the men. The women can play a supporting role in this, but never more than that. For all the talk about “girl power” and “women kicking ass” which you see on movies these days, if the men of your “tribe” are too weak or demoralised to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other “tribes” before you can say “Vagina Monologues”. Which means that if you break down men’s masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years.

For several years, I have said that Fjordman is indeed a fascist. Now, this is a word which is often thrown about much too easily. I’ve heard enough people speak of the Norwegian PRogress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) as fascist, suggesting that they do not know much about the Progress Party, and that they know next to nothing about fascism. When I call Fjordman as fascist, however, I’m using a rather common scholarly definition, that of leading fascism scholar Roger Griffin:

[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.

Now, Fjordman is obviously a nationalist, and – lo! behold! – he does call for a native revolt. In his works, he describes a political revolution, which he sees as necessary, to ensure a national rebirth of sorts. In fact, he writes of the necessity of “a new Renaissance, where European civilization can flourish once more”, and even says that “We need to make sure, though, that those who have championed the toxic ideas of Multiculturalism and mass immigration of alien tribes disappear with it”. And, Fjordman does speak of decadence as one of the root-causes of the European decay which plays a central role in his world-view, while of course focussing on Marxism – a rather wide category in his world (that’s hardly a new meme amongst fascists). He furthermore does call for massive “ethical” and “social” changes, amongst other things to ensure that (White) women have more babies. He seems willing to “suspend” parliamentary democracy. And on top of it all, he is obsessed with the idea of historical heroes, for instance Charles Martel and John III Sobieski. In his book, Fjordman writes:

The EU is systematically surrendering the continent to our worst enemies. [...] When an organization ignores the interests of its own people yet implements the interests of that people’s enemies, that organization has become an actively hostile entity run by a corrupt class of abject traitors. This is what the EU is today. [...]Those inhabiting the European continent are first and foremost Germans, Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Portuguese etc. “Europe” has existed mainly to protect the continent against Islamic expansionism. Charles Martel created Europe in the modern sense when he defeated the Arab invasion in the seventh century, aided by people such as Pelayo, who started the Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula, John Hunyadi and Lazar of Serbia who fought against the Turks in the Balkans and John III Sobieski, King of Poland, who beat the Ottomans during the 1683 Battle of Vienna. The EU is actively working to undo everything Charles Martel and these men achieved. This makes it the anti-European Union.

In short, Fjordman neatly fits the definition of “fascism”. He is a neo-fascist ideologist.  To boot, he does not seem to have any problems – whatsoever – in cooperating with political groups whose roots are decidedly and glaringly obviously found in the post-WWII movement of European neo-fascisu think?

I do wonder, though, mr. Bostom, would you make similar excuses for an Islamist blogger who had inspired an Islamist terrorist? You wouldn’t? Quelle surprise.

Updated: Fixed a spelling mistake which a Facebook friend was kind enough to point out. Added webcitation-links, and also added a reference to another Fjordman essay pointed out by Sigve Indregard. 05.08 – 23:37

32 thoughts on “Journalist resource: So, what’s the deal with Fjordman?

  1. Here’s my take on it. I read through a few Fjordman essays. I think there are more than enough direct encouragements to political violence in them to put the bell on the cat: Fjordman has perhaps not incited Breivik, but the kind of violence Breivik brings to the table is exactly the kind of “appropriate measures” Fjordman envisages.

    You can see the excerpt I am thinking of in my post on this theme (in Norwegian).

    I also want to add that I am not really interested in whether Fjordman is legally responsible for Breivik’s actions or not, and I am not a lawyer. I do not believe his ideas are direct incitement to violence. My point is that he has no right to act shocked about Breivik’s strike. He might not have had the guts to do it himself, but he has clearly stated the need to get rid of traitors.

  2. Pingback: Redaktørbloggen » Blog Archive » Oversikt over kommentarer og debatter etter terrorangrepet

  3. Wow, jeg takker så meget for denne fantastiske artikkelen og arbeidet du har gjort med å sette deg inn i denne brune ideologien. Jeg trodde virkelig ikke det var så ille, og takker spesielt for at du har belyst rasisme-elementet med faktiske sitater.

    Det synes mer og mer tydelig at det å kritisere islam er å leke med ilden. Vi mennesker har mange mindre pene impulser, som vår tendens til å tenke i form av inn- og ut-grupper. Det virker som mange ikke klarer å kontrollere seg, og ender med å demonisere og avhumanisere muslimer. Det virker som medmenneskeligheten forsvinner helt.

    Man kan også diskutere hvor mye det har for seg at ikke-muslimer kritiserer islam, i alle fall teologisk. Da synes det mer konstruktivt å gå etter skadelige kulturelle praksiser som omskjæring. Forandring av islam må nok primært komme innenfra. Det er muslimers kamp, og i høyden kan vi underbygge og støtte de progressive kreftene.

    • @Frode:

      Det finst ein god del skapeleg islamkritikk, og det kan det jo og vera gode grunnar til, all den tid islam er ein del av det norske samfunnet. Ein kunne gjerne fått litt buddhismekritikk også for min del. Eg trur det er viktig å skilja mellom den skapelege islamkritikken og desse konspirasjonsteoriane.

      Det gjeld neppe Fjordman (som er monomant oppteken av islam), men sjå gjerne denne artikkelen for døme på korleis fascistar har plukka opp islamkritikken ut frå rein “convenience”.

  4. Jeg synes noe av det verste med mange av de høyrevridde og fascistiske uttalelsene og personene som ofte ytrer de, er hvor vanvittig selvmotsigende de kan være, og hvor lite innsikt de har i hvordan verden fungerer innimellom. En ganske drøy selvmotsigelse er jo at mange av de samme folkene som tror hele USA er styrt av jøder, tror også at de prøver å tvinge på oss ‘multikulturismen’ ved å snikislamisere oss. Og det irriterer meg når folk som lever på trygd og har opparbeid seg egenandelskort klager over skattetrykket i Norge (og jobber svart samtidig) De samme folkene er kanskje trygdet fordi de var imot ‘kommunistiske’ fagforeninger og HMS folk som prøvde å ‘kontrollere’ dem. Nå utgjør de sikkert ikke størstedelen av folkene på den siden av politikken (selv om mange av dem har mistenkelig mye tid til å sitte å diskutere på nettet) De har i tillegg en liten forståelse av hvordan demokrati fungerer, eller så tror de at de faktisk er i flertall, og derfor burde få bestemme hvordan vi andre skal leve.
    Og , et poeng til, hvorfor fungerer ikke ‘multikulturisme’ ? Jo nettopp på grunn av ekstremister ( på alle sider, de engelske muslimene som håper å få sharialover gjør ikek så mye for å bli likt heller)
    De som tror at det er enkelt å drive demokratiet som det er i dag, og prøve å gjøre alle til lags (som kanskje er litt feil) burde ta en snar titt på hvor digert regjeringskvartalet er, og høre litt på diskusjoner i stortinget, så skjønner de hvor mange meninger og hvor mye arbeid det innebærer å styre et såpass lite land som Norge. Bare den tiden det tar og få igjennom en beslutning eller avstemning i Norge (eller EU for den del) er jo bevis i seg selv på at det ikke er noe diktatur.

  5. I see you’ve cross-posted this as a page on LGF, so I might as well point out (in case you were unaware) that, once upon a time, the “Native Revolt” essay was wildly popular on that site. It has since been scrubbed, so here is some proof:

    (in case you want to include that nagging detail)

    • @ChenZhen:

      I believe many in the blogosphere are aware that a number of Fjordman’s essays were posted on Little Green Footballs, and that Fjordman posted there himself – both as “Norwegian kafir” and “Fjordman”, and that they were also popular amongst much of the audience the site had back then. Indeed, Little Green Footballs was once one of the central blogs in the nexus of “counterjihadism”. The difference between Charles Johnson and many of his current detractors (who really loath him, because disagreement is treason in their world) it the following: Charles recognised the madness. And then he turned away. He’s not the only one who has done so, and he will not be the last one.

      Just a few days ago, Charles Johnson wrote the following:

      My posts about Fjordman were deleted years ago, because I realized that the person who had represented himself as a rational critic of Islam was, in reality, a white nationalist of a particularly sneaky and nasty sort. I didn’t remove those posts to hide anything — I removed them because I wanted his crap off my site, and wanted nothing to do with him or his followers. I’ve never hidden any of this. I’ve spent the last four years refuting, debunking, and arguing against Fjordman and his associates, and I invite anyone to have a look through my archives and confirm this fact.

      In fact, in 2007 Charles wrote the following on the last thread where Fjordman was active on his site:

      Believe me, Fjordman, I’m wondering tonight why I ever thought you had anything worthwhile to say. If the time comes when it “backfires” on me that I linked to your essays, I’ll be happy to say “Mea culpa”.

      And just yesterday, he repeated that sentiment. So that’s why I do not have problems sharing my article with an American audience over at Little Green Footballs. The times, they are a-changin’.

  6. Well put. Its interesting to see that Fjordman is basically a “Black Marxist”, insofar as he sees history as an inevitable prcess. Just like Marx saw capitalism by necessity leading to a revolution, so Fjordman inevitably sees a racewar as a result of globalization. A lot of the tripe he pushes is basically recycled critiscism of “the liberal establishment” in the US during the 50s and 60s, where the liberal conspiracy more often than not included the Jews, and had as an aim to destroy the white race by letting blacks breed with whites. It seems he sees the EDL as the way to go, mobs forcing retaliation from the police, wich will enflame more mobs, wich will make the police turn around and join the people and all will unite in a giant happy pogrom of muslims and liberals.

    An interesting point in the debate is all the people screaming that he is being persecuted for his beliefs and his expressions, since his appartment got raided by the police. I do wonder if the same people would be shouting if Zawahiri, the Al Quaeda theoretic master, was found living in Norway. After all, he also just calls for a war, but doesnt seem to pull the trigger.

  7. For those whishing proof of the bubble Fjordman lives in, see this:

    “I am shocked by the hostile treatment I received at the hands of the police.
    Lars Hedegaard heard my story and commented that he had never known of any witness who has been treated in this manner in any Western country, except for totalitarian societies such as the Third Reich.”

    The poor man is shocked, shocked that the police actually raided his house in search of evidence for contacts, etc. He is involved in the greatest homicidecase in Norway, there is a real element of doubt wether there were other involved in the crime, and he has admitted to being in contact with the killer. (As a friend of mine wrote on facebook, “ive been treated worse for driving a moped without licenceplates”. Wich is true.) It seems to me that the whole extreme right dont understand the serious issue at hand, they see a police investigation as some sort of black helicopter crackdown. The usual answer for serious political people is to say”Of course, we will coopoerate fully with the police to see if he was in contact with other sleeper cells, here are our IP adresses.”

    LGF got turned around partly by Hitchens I believe… WIch is not a bad thing, god loves a repentant sinner.

    I changed the link into to a webcitation-link; that way there’s no direct link to GoV, and it does not go down the memory hole either. I highly recommend WebCitation as a tool. -Ø

  8. La meg først si at jeg synes at dette er glimrende analyse.

    Neste steg bør være å se på hvilke samfunnsendringer som gir så sterkt uro at mange tiltales av Fjordmans tanker. Dette mangler fullstendig i debatten i dag.

    Selv har jeg forresten kranglet med ham flere ganger på nett, noe du kanskje har dokumentasjon på, men selv om jeg finner ham lite tiltalende, så deler jeg hans frykt for innvandring, basert både på den observerte kriminaliteten og volden, og fordi jeg anser at land med store etniske-religiøse motsetninger som tikkende bomber.

    Dette har aldri fått meg over til å støtte hans retorikk, men jeg har truffet andre som har gjort det, dessverre.

    Videre ser jeg for meg at en økning i konfliktnivå og kriminalitet, kanskje koblet med et terrorangrep fra en gruppe mot den andre (som i Irak,) virkelig kan rive samfunnet i filler og dermed gi frodig mark for fascister i flere leire.

  9. @Aesop:

    Vel, det er forsåvidt ikke neste steg, ettersom jeg har sagt en del om dette mange ganger tidligere, blant annet Hvorfor konspirasjonsteorier har grobunn er en stor diskusjon – som innbefatter langt og mye mer enn akkurat denne varianten. Se til 911-konspirasjonsteorier, f.eks.

    Ellers har jeg skrevet og sagt en del om andre aspekter her også. I 2006 skrev jeg blant annet:

    Much too often, the task of defending so-called Western values has been left to far right parties. That way, we have allowed them to set the order of the day. This is our madness. Through fear of being seen as racist, we have invited those who really are racist to the stage. Trolls burst in sunlight, but modern-day fascists have learnt to wear suits and ties and to smile on TV, and even when the Blood & Honour flags are only steps away, they have learnt to revel in the light, to dance and spout their propaganda, letting the media they love to hate help them.

    That way, the anti-immigrant sentiments became not only acceptable, unlike racism they became politically correct. It is one of the largest paradoxes of European politics today: you are not allowed to be a racist, but you are expected to act like one. In that climate the modern-day fascists can spread their poisonous ideas, their opposition to religious freedom, their division of people according to ethnic background, they can turn Islam as a whole into a monstrous, demonic religion, a religion with a «fundamental lack of love». In effect, we have put our faith in fascists, hoping for them to defend our most prized ideas. Of course, they won’t. They do not believe in gay rights. They do not believe in feminism. They want to limit individual freedoms. They sport ideas of banning Islam, ideas of apartheid, forced repatriation, ideas that can have much more devastating consequences than the actions of Islamists have in Osama bin Laden’s wettest dreams. And the worst thing of all is that we have started lending them our ears.

    A survey done for the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper in Germany, showed that 56 per cent believe there should be a ban on building mosques in Germany. When asked a rather leading question, 40 per cent even agreed they would support moves to impose «strict limits» on the practice of Islam. 56 per cent believe that «the clash of civilizations» has already begun. I have lost count of how many times I have heard similar views, far outside the circles that would even dreamt of voting for a party like Vlaams Belang. Out of fear for an attack on so-called Western values, people are prepared to betray the very same values.

    However, to call these so-called Western values – democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the equality of the sexes – Western, is in itself a betrayal. Their westernness have nothing to do with their validity, nothing to do with their value. Western ideas are only good when they are good, and that’s the only reason for defending them. Against all attackers.

    Med andre ord: venstresiden burde ha vært flinkere til å konfrontere både islamisme og mer tradisjonelt, men problematisk og tildels reaksjonært, religiøst tankegods. Det er bare det, at jeg anser mange muslimer som allierte i det spørsmålet, og ikke som motstandere.

  10. @Strømmen

    Enig i mye av det du skriver her, men du kunne spart deg den siste setningen, hvis den var myntet på meg.

    Den største forskjellen oss i mellom er at jeg har et vesentlig dystrere syn på både tradisjonell islam, politisk islam og mulighetene for å reformere det, ref. f.eks. dette med syn på frafall fra islam. I tillegg så tror jeg at motsetningene vil øke med mer innvandring og mer kontakt, dessverre, ref. både de sosiale problemene i mange innvandringstette områder og de historiske og dagsaktuelle konfliktene som har vært og er mellom islam og andre religioner.

    På det menneskelige plan er jeg selvfølgelig enig med deg. Islam forsvinner i dets tradisjonelle form kun gjennom at muslimer velger bort aspekter, på den måten som de måtte finne formålstjenelig. Jeg tror denne prosessen har begynt, islamismens oppblomsting i denne generasjonen til tross. Iran er et opplagt eksempelt. Tyrkia har en betydelig sekulær befolkning, som riktignok får færre barn enn i de religiøse. Ser en på forum som brukes av politisk interesserte muslimer, så yttrykkes det også der frykt for at hverdagslivet i Vesten skal friste for mye.

    For å ikke ta med for mange momenter, runder jeg nå av. Hvis jeg skal oppsummere min tenkning, så er det bedre å forebygge ved å være streng med hvem man slipper inn, fremfor å la ting utarte.

  11. Da leser jeg avslutningen som et hjertesukk over at mange ikke kan kritisere islam uten å samtidig tro eller mene det aller verste om muslimer.

    • Aesop:

      Den der var såpass stygg at jeg mener aldri burde latt trådstarterens innlegg stå der. Jeg håper også at politiet sørger for at ikke noen voldsromantikere fra en annen kant finner ut at de skal utøve en slags utenomrettslig hevn mot Fjordman. Et av få områder der jeg er enig med Ole Jørgen Anfindsen.

  12. Tusen takk for meget bra skrevet artikkel/analyse!
    Meget effektiv motgift mot den denne “Fjordmann” sprer ut.

  13. Debatten det linkes til gir for øvrig anledning til å peke på en annen problemstilling som (så langt jeg kan se) langt på vei har vært tabu.

    De fleste av oss synes selvfølgelig den (og liknende debatter) er argumentstom og fordummende. Men hva om disse som ytrer seg egentlig ikke har så mye mer/bedre å fare med?
    Blir deres alternativ kun å holde kjeft?

    Jeg har en mistanke om at de som liker å holde fast ved troen på et godt, egalitært og gjennomutdannet samfunn ikke helt klarer å fatte at dette er “tanker” som mendmennesker har tenkt -og deretter uttrykt.

    Jeg har tidligere vært innom nettopp denne “demokratiserende” effekten av nettet – selv om vi ikke liker konsekvensene, -og for den del : innser farene.

    In Cod we trust

  14. Aesop: Det finnes en tolkning av “Likvidere Fjordmann” tråden som er ironisk: Den retter seg mot de som alle satt og ville drepe Krekar (og det var ikke få) og spør om de er like hissige nå. Hvilket de jo ikke er. Når det er sagt, så er det slevfølgelig en idiotisk kommentar. Men det er ikke akkurat noe særlig uvanlig med dødstrusler i Norge, selv under fullt navn. Om du sjekker ut “Vi som hater Blitz” grupps på Facebook ser du flere titalls nordmenn med fullt navn åpent si at de har lyst til å sprenge huset og drepe dets brukere, ofte i ganske saftig detalj. Bør slike saker kunne rettdforfølges? Hvordan? Se det er et spørsmål.

    Ser forøvrig med undring på hvordan “lov og orden” forkjemperne på høyresida nå hyller Fjordmann for ikke å samarbeide med politiet i Norges største drapssak. Sukk.

  15. @Cassanders

    Det der med mørket ja…. Kobler man det indre mørket som i variende grad er hos de fleste av oss, og bytter ut de sosiale sperrene vi er lært opp til å ha med mobbens oppmuntring…

    Det var for eksempel sjokkerende det som skjedde med en sør afrikansk kvinnelig journalist i Egypt, riktignok et land der kvinner ikke får gå i fred på gaten på samme måte som andre steder, men selve mobmentaliteten finnes beskrevet i europeiske bøker også. Gustave Le Bon f.eks…

    For to år siden, da Kristin Halvorsen talte til de som senere angrep den israelske ambassaden, gamle menn med flagg og så videre, så viste en avis et bildet av henne flagg som vaiet rødt – hvitt – svart i bakgrunnen. Ubehagelig. Hadde det vært jødiske butikker ville de blitt smadret som i 30-årenes Tyskland.

    Så over til Fjordman. Dagbladet sammenligner hans retorikk med Himler. Stripp av Himlers uniform et øyeblikk og ser for dere ham i vanlige klær.

    Trekker det langt nå? Ja, på mange måter, men det jeg egentlig forsøker er å trekke de gamle redslene nærmere.

  16. Her er mye stoff om de høyreekstreme. En rasende “Lionheart” legger ut om trusler mot moren hans, om Alan Lakes forbindelser til etterretningstjenester, om at EDL er styrt fra USA og at EDL styrer NDL, om at alle Breiviks forbilder var en del av Gates of Vienna, men at hans artikler ikke er nevnt, så han tror han er satt opp. Und so weiter…

    Gjorde den om til en webcitation-link, både siden jeg da slipper å lenke direkte til fyren, og siden man da kan få et tidsriktig bilde, også i fremtiden. -Ø .

  17. Viktig poeng – så vidt jeg har forstått hadde Breivik bestemt seg for et angrep for veldig mange år siden og spart opp de siste ni årene.

    Så hverken Fjordman eller de andre bloggerne som er nevnt i manifestet kan klandres for Breiviks angrep, siden de begynte å publisere på nett lenge etter at Breivik tok avgjørelsen om å gjennomføre et terroristangrep.

    Dette var en “lone wolf” som jeg tror ingen kunne gjort noe med, siden han jobbet hardt for å holde intensjonene sine skjult hele veien, og lyktes med det. Det er tragisk, men ikke Fjordmans feil, uansett hva man synes om meningene hans. (Jeg er ikke fan, for å ha klargjort det.)

    • P.C:

      Fjordman er ikke “nevnt” i manifestet. 39 av essayene hans er tatt med i sin helhet, og Fjordman fremheves av Breivik som -den- sentrale tenkeren i ideologien han tar utgangspunkt. Kan Fjordman klandres for det? Nei. Kan han klandres for å spredt sitt giftige tankegods i årevis? Ja.

  18. Hr ikkje sett denne nettsida før, og syntes den er nyttig for samfunnsdebatten. Temaet om facistsk dvs. politisk vold er dessverre blitt aktuelt også i Norge. Har deltatt i debaten omkring dette etter angrepa og mordene 22/7. Vedlegg dette då det tar opp temaet med politisk vold som her blir debattert.
    Har også vedlag svar frå debattanten Ivar Garberg til mitt innlegg, dette skal eg gje eit tilsvar på, men i såfall litt seinare, evt. i kveld.
    Innlegg frå Helge Nilsen – Publisert 08.08.2011 i Dagsavisen:
    ( Kommentar #66 i nettdebatt etter Hæger sitt innlegg ….”Lokk på debatten ”):
    ….å bli drept for sine politiske meiningers skuld ?
    For å få ei forståing omkring facismens trussel mot demokrati og ytringsfridom, må ein gå inn i dei faktiske motiv for det grusomme som er utført. Det er liten tvil om at øydeleggingane i Oslo og mordene på Utøya var politisk og ideologisk motivert. Angrepet vart utført av ein person med det uttalte mål å eliminere personar som tilhører sosialdemokratiet samt personar med islamsk tru og så innføre et facistisk styresett i Norge.
    Norge har tidligare vært skåna for slike omfattande truslar frå ytre høgre men ser ein til vår geografiske nærhet så er nettopp slike truslar frå totalitære regimer og facistiske grupper, truleg den største trusselen mot menneskerettar, demokrati og ytringsfrihet.
    Drapet på journalisten og menneskerettsaktiisten AnnaPolitskaja og fleire kjente menneskerettsadvokatar i Russland er eksempler på slik antidemokratisk og facistisk vold mot mennesker fordi dei fronter akkurat desse verdiane, verdiar som nettopp ungdommane på Utøya var representantar for. Det er neppe tvil at om desse unge politikarane nettop vart drepne også fordi dei representerte slike verdiar i det norske samfunnet.
    Ideologien som ligg bak dei antidemokratiske og framandfiendlege holdningane er velkjente men det må likevel være eit påfallande paradoks at både Breivik og Jensen krev å få innføre eit vokterråd i Norge, noko som faktisk er etter modell av det totalitære regimet i Iran.
    Ytring eller Trussel ?
    Det er noko som eg undrar på ?
    (Gjentar litt frå i mitt førre innlegg, nr. #55 ):
    …..Kunne ein tenke seg at eg ein nabo, fordi han mislikar mine politiske ytringar eller religiøse overbevisning, under dekke av lova om ytringsfridom kunne spre flygeblad over mitt nærområdet med oppfordring om at eg og alle med tilsvarande status med alle NØDVENDIGE midler burde eliminerast frå vårt samfunn ?? …….Nei, truleg ikkje.
    Det er ihvertfall liten tvil om at dette ville forårsake frykt hos meg og dei andre som er utpeika i kunngjeringa – både frykt for å bli angrepen men ikkje minst frykt for å ytre seg fritt i det politiske ordskifte.
    Spørsmålet ein faktisk er nødt til å stille er om ei oppfordring om fiendtlege handlingar mot andre er ei ”ytring” eller ein ”trussel” ?
    Det svært ugreie i denne saka er bruken av begrepet ”nødvendige”, slik det er brukt i Jensens retorikk . For det poengterer nettop at alt som er “nødvendig” kan rettferdiggjerast brukt for å oppnå Jensens og Breiviks politiske mål. Begrepet ”nødvendige midlar” betyr rett og slett ”alle midlar”, d.v.s lovlege og ulovlege – det er ikkje anna måte å tolke dette på ? Jensen skal være høgt utdanna og ein må kunne anta at han forstår kva han vil formidle til omverdenen ?
    Det er det som etter mi meining endrar Jensens konkrete hatpropaganda frå å vere ei demokratisk “ytring” til faktisk å være ein trussel mot spesifikke personar og grupper av mennesker ? Ein svært svært realistisk trussel viste det seg, dessverre.
    Helge Nilsen , Dagsavsen 2011-08-08

    Vedlegger under også debattanten Ivar Garberg sitt tilsvar på dette i samme debattspalte :

    Kommentar #71 frå Ivar Garberg :

    Sitat frå Helge Nilsen: ….”Angrepet vart utført av ein person med det uttalte mål å eliminere personar som tilhører”
    New Page 1
    Her finner du en analyse av manifestet:
    Og dette er alt som står om muslimer-
    “, he argues:
    The fear of Islamisation is the most pressing concern for most Europeans and Islam is NOT a race. So avoid talking about race. It is a cultural war, not a race war!
    While Breivik uses Christian, and particularly Crusader, iconography and language, this is in a cultural or civilisational way rather than religious. Descriptions of him as a “Christian fundamentalist” do not really capture this distinction. He describes his politics as “cultural conservatism” or “Crusader nationalism”; while the former is clearly too euphemistic to describe a violent revolutionary, the latter label feels appropriate.
    Breivik is not opposed to all immigration: while he calls for the deportation of all Muslims from Europe, he does not endorse similar policies for non-Muslim immigrants, “as long as they are fully assimilated…Any future immigration needs to be strictly controlled and exclusively non-Muslim.”
    Jeg utfordrer deg til å dokumentere din påstand om at massedrapet og bombeangrepet var rettet mot muslimer. Det er nemlig jøder som står på hans drapsliste
    Dette sier drapsmannen om jøder:
    It is striking that, even as someone who describes himself as “pro-Israel”, Breivik believes that half of all Israeli Jews are enemies who, presumably, must be killed, imprisoned or punished in some other way; as are three-quarters of European and American Jews. Classical antisemitism constructs an image of a typical Jew which bears no relation to reality, but is simply a cipher for all that the antisemite hates and fears. Breivik’s categorisation of the different types of Jews (and Israel) fits this way of thinking perfectly.
    (Slutt kommentar #72 frå Ivar Garberg )

    Andre tilsvar frå Garberg:

    Kommentar #72 av Ivar Garberg :
    Hvem skulle han drepe?
    Sitat frå Helge Nilsen: …..”uttalte mål å eliminere personar som tilhører”
    Målet var ikke å drepe sosialdemokrater rent generelt, men å drepe ledere av Arbeiderpartiet i Norge; nåværende og fremtidige.
    Er det for mye å be om en redelig debatt?
    (Slutt kommentar #72 frå Ivar Garberg )
    ( Sitat slutt frå dagsavisens debatt til Anders Hægers innlegg ”lokk på debatten ” )

  19. P.C:
    For det første har vi bare ABBs egen påstend om at han bestemte seg for 9 år siden (jeg for min del er ikke overbevist om akkurat det, iallefall ikke om at han hadde så konkrete planer, 9 år siden er tross alt bare kort tid etter invasjonen i Afghanistan).

    For det andre har ABB åpenbart ikke vært døv og blind disse 9 årene. Kan Fjordmans giftige retorikk ha styrket ABB i troen (selv om ideen var sådd allerede i 2002)? Ja, det må vi tillate oss å tro, det er nokså sannsynlig som en generell psykologisk mekanisme.

  20. Pingback: links for 2011-08-14 « Ibn Kafka's obiter dicta – divagations d'un juriste marocain en liberté surveillée

  21. Øyvind, du vet at “media “er flertall på engelsk? Unødvendig å korrigere noe som er riktig i Fjordmans tekster.

Comments are closed.