I reported last week on an email conversation I’ve been having with a British journalist who originally wanted to talk to Fjordman, but had to settle for me instead. The exchange is ongoing, and his latest message, which arrived early this morning, finally got down to the nitty-gritty: Anders Behring Breivk.
Below are his questions (in italicized block quotes), and my responses.
I confess I had wondered about your focus on Europe. This [the fact that you lived in England] rather explains it: though I cannot believe you encountered a particularly egregious type of Islam in 1960s Britain?
No, the Pakistani invasion had just barely begun when I left England. I lived in what was then the West Riding of Yorkshire, and local jokes made reference to “Pakis in Bradford”, so even then Bradford was known as Pakistani territory. But there were none in Leeds that I noticed. West Indians were far more commonly seen; they were called “niggers” by the locals, without any derogatory intent. The word sounded strange (and unpleasant) to an American, of course. But it had no significance in Yorkshire back then.
The multicultural changes came after I left. I was astonished at the difference in England when I returned for a visit in 2002, almost 30 years after the last time I had been there.
Another question if I may: in your other reply, you mention Dr Pipes, and lament his unwarranted association with Anders Breivik.
Breivik is the elephant in the room. So let’s address it.
Given that your blog is cited a dozen times and more in his manifesto, and you are quoted several times individually, do you feel any sense of involvement in 22 July?
Not in the slightest. He was (is) a psychopath, whose ideas, wherever they come from, serve simply as the rationale or self-justification for his murderous impulses. He spoke highly of Thomas Jefferson, too, but I think Mr. Jefferson may rest easily.
The same goes for Che Guevara, for that matter — Mr. Breivik was a devotee of the bloodthirsty Argentine Communist, but I hardly think that means the Progressives must abandon their reverence for Che.
The political opinions of a psychopath are at most tangential to his violent acts, since the acts themselves are his raison d’être. Had he been brought up in a different environment, Mr. Breivik’s murders might have been justified by citing Herbert Marcuse — or Mohammed.
Fjordman is the most cited individual. Given your friendship I wonder if you know whether he loses sleep over what happened to those children? Do you?
Fjordman will have to speak for himself; it would be presumptuous of me to say anything about what I think he might feel.
As for me, once again: absolutely not.
University professors who devote their careers to Karl Marx do not lose any sleep because hundreds of millions of people were murdered in the name of their idol by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il Sung, and Pol Pot.
Nor should they — the only people responsible for murderous deeds are those who commit them, and those who directly incite them. University professors (mostly) do not do that.
If you had actually read what I write, you would know that I advocate an urgent course correction for the West through peaceful democratic means only. This is our sole, slim hope of escaping violence and bloodshed instigated by people who are not at all like me, who do not share my philosophy and temperament, and who are not enamored of all the niceties I hold dear, such as the democratic process, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
People like Fjordman, Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are all that stand between modern Western civilization and a rude, brutal form of mass violence, of a sort that has not been seen at least since 1945, and more likely since 1683 or 1453.
The fact that the vast majority of educated, intellectual Westerners do not understand the historical praxis of current events is a sign of how slight our chances are. But still, we can but try.