If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.
Islamization and the 2013 Elections in Norway
by Fjordman
The left-wing coalition of PM Jens Stoltenberg has conceded defeat in the September 2013 elections in Norway. The likely new Prime Minister will be Erna Solberg of the Conservative Party (Høyre), who is unfortunately still a devout Multiculturalist. She is currently engaged in talks with three other center-right parties (by local standards) who together hold the majority in the new Parliament. One of these is the country’s third largest party, the right-wing Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet). For the first time ever, they now look set to become a part of a coalition government or at least have some type of formalized cooperation with the new government.
The prospect that this party might have some influence over the country’s immigration policies has caused panicked reactions among members of the heavily left-leaning press. However, the Progress Party in Norway is softer than the Danish People’s Party in Denmark or the Sweden Democrats in Sweden. It stubbornly refuses to associate with either of these perfectly legitimate parties in public. This is a cowardly decision.
The problem with the Progress Party in recent years is that they have tried to appease and placate the hostile mass media. A better option would be to simply accept that the media will always be hostile to everybody who is critical of mass immigration. Accepting this makes it easier to go on the offensive. Trying to placate hostile journalists only makes one look weak.
This problem has grown worse after the big national trauma in Norway: Anders Behring Breivik’s massacre of 77 people on July 22, 2011. Breivik was for a limited time an unimportant local member of a Progress Party chapter in one part of Oslo, but he left because he could not find room for a career there. He openly stated in his so-called manifesto that he suspected that his brief association with this party would create problems for them after his terror attacks. He seemed to derive satisfaction from this thought, and further stated during the trial that he wanted to trigger a “witch-hunt” on non-violent groups on the political Right.
The mass media have given him pretty much what he wanted in this regard. The unfair attacks by the press and the political establishment on the Progress Party for somehow preparing the grounds for Breivik’s massacre were initially quite strong, and continue to some extent to this day. Breivik has become a very convenient tool for smearing critics of Islam and mass immigration.
On September 10 2013, immediately after the elections, the British newspaper The Independent ran the following headline: “Norway election results: Anti-immigrant party with links to mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik set to enter government under Conservative leader Erna Solberg.” Corriere della Sera, one of Italy’s major newspapers, labeled them the “Breivik party.” The Progress Party argued that such labels are unfair and might damage Norway’s reputation abroad. They called for a press conference to dispel such accusations.
The outgoing Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of the Labour Party challenged Siv Jensen, the leader of the Progress Party, to publicly apologize for using the term “sneak-Islamization.” She refused, but Ketil Solvik-Olsen, the party’s deputy leader, earlier told a meeting with foreign journalists that Jensen’s claim that Norway faced the threat of “sneak-Islamization” had been unfortunate. He apologized for this.
Siv Jensen had previously used the term “snikislamisering,” which might be translated as “stealth-Islamization,” “sneak-Islamization” or “creeping Islamization.” Of course, in real life this term is now inadequate. What we are seeing in parts of Western Europe today is no longer stealth-Islamization; it’s open, galloping Islamization.
Norway’s most controversial refugee is the militant Muslim known as Mullah Krekar. In the past he has praised the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and has suggested that Muslims will colonize and dominate Europe because they breed like “mosquitoes.” Krekar, then in prison for making death threats, in August 2013 stated in a letter that Muslims in Norway should support the reelection of PM Jens Stoltenberg and vote for the Socialist parties. This because in Mullah Krekar’s view, “The strategy for the Leftists and Muslims has much in common.”
The country’s most notorious militant Muslim thus wanted the Labour Party leader Jens Stoltenberg reelected because this would further Islamization. At the same time, the Labour Party leader Jens Stoltenberg wanted people from right-wing parties to apologize just for merely mentioning Islamization.
Members of the political Left and the press — which largely seems to be the same thing — continue to demonize the rather soft Progress Party. Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the national daily Dagbladet and one of the country’s high-profile columnists, indicated that simply mentioning Islamization at all makes you a borderline right-wing extremist. Mina Adampour, a so-called anti-racist and far-Left activist of Iranian origins, in the leading newspaper Aftenposten labeled the Progress Party MP Christian Tybring-Gjedde a “conspiracy theorist” because he had dared to suggest that mass immigration might threaten the nation’s native culture.
These and similar articles are clearly attempts to bully the Progress Party into dropping what they have left of restrictive immigration policies.
Hilde Sandvik, the editor of the regional daily Bergens Tidende, believes the calls for ideological cleansing after Breivik have totalitarian underpinnings. They resemble religious ideas about purification rites to ward off evil. She also noted that immigration had hardly been mentioned as an important issue during the elections, which is true.
One of the subjects that came up after July 2011 was press censorship and media bias. The Norwegian mass media claimed that there is no significant media bias. This is clearly not true. The ongoing immigration is so large that it could render the native population a minority in their own country within a few decades, and it costs huge sums every single year. Neighboring Sweden, which shares a very long and weakly protected border with Norway, has even bigger problems and suffered major immigrant riots in 2013.
These issues are of critical importance for the demographic, cultural and economic future of the country and the entire continent. Even so, they were barely debated by the leading political parties during the election campaign. The mass media did their very best to keep a lid on all issues related to immigration. The very same journalists will often ruthlessly attack anybody who suggests even rather modest reductions in immigration.
On September 7, 2013, just two days before the national elections in Norway, the major newspaper Aftenposten published a largely positive interview with the then Minister of Finance Sigbjørn Johnsen from the Labour Party, together with his 18-year-old daughter. This was a couple of days after Swedish authorities had announced that all Syrians who came to Sweden would get instant permanent residency for themselves and their family members in Syria. Millions of people were then on the run from the Syrian civil war, and many of them could potentially get permanent residency in Scandinavia.
Throughout 2013 the small business daily Finansavisen published a series of carefully researched articles detailing just how extremely costly non-European mass immigration is for Norway. In 2006 the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) published numbers indicating that mass immigration is so costly that it could wipe out a large proportion of Norway’s considerable oil wealth. The bill runs into tens of billions of kroner every single year, a very large sum for a small country.
One would think that this would be a natural thing to ask a sitting Minister of Finance from the country’s largest political party about during an election campaign. But no, Aftenposten’s journalists Marie Melgård and Ida De Rosa didn’t ask the Minister a single critical question about this subject. As a matter of fact, the word “immigration” wasn’t mentioned once throughout the entire article. Minister of Finance Sigbjørn Johnsen was there presented as a competent leader and caring father who wanted to make a better future for his daughter. He admitted that the future might be more challenging for her generation, economically speaking. Yet he was still confident that future generations will thank his left-wing government for its policies and decisions.
Will they now, really? I looked at his teenage daughter with her long blond hair and thought about what it will be like for her when she is a minority in her own capital city a generation from now, and perhaps in the entire country two generations from now. Is it good for her to know that she is in effect funding her own colonization and national destruction, as are the other natives in Scandinavia and Western Europe?
We didn’t get to know the answer to that question because it wasn’t asked. It should have been.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.
Sadly,the “guilty by association” technique using Breivik,was employed here in
Switzerland as well,by SFR,the state-tv.When reporting from the Norwegian
elections,the speakers made a point of repeatedly mentioning Breiviks membership
of the progress party,ignoring the specifics every time.
Very good Fjordman. Keep up the good work, let the rest of the world know what is going on in Norway!
Pingback: Tommy Robinson: ‘F*** off…’ øh ‘free lunch’ « Snaphanen
Are you sure multiculturalism – the notion that all people of all backgrounds are equal under the one law of the land – is a problem? It seems to be the antithesis of what Jihadis want.
Multiculturalism is the battering ram. It tells Westerners that we must not have any pride in our historic culture or any inclination to defend it. It says that our culture is defective and needs an infusion of large numbers of people who insist on keeping their native cultures.
Multiculturalism commands us to be accommodating when Muslims insist on having public footbaths, time off for prayers, a “right” to be veiled, a “right” to deny taxi service to blind people with guide dogs, a “right” to build huge mosques in residential neighborhoods, and/or to take over public sidewalks for collective prayer, and to broadcast the muezzin’s call, etc.
Multiculturalism tells us that “tolerance” requires us to censor our speech, lest Muslims be offended. It paves the way for aggressive da’wa and the gradual imposition of Islamic norms on everyone else.
Tony Blair said he wanted to “rub the right’s noses in diversity.” The result is that parts of London and other British cities (not to mention French) are turning into zones where infidels are commanded to adhere to sharia rules, and all of England is a place where Muslims are granted indulgence to be hateful and aggressive while the authorities crack down hard on critics of Islam.
Multiculturalists may not think they’re clearing the path for an Islamic cultural conquest, but they are.
Quote:
You are describing a part of “Liberté – égalité – fraternité, the foundation of European political culture. It says that all people are “égal,” meaning equal, including women.
In contrast, multiculturalism says that all cultures are equal.
end
I want an answer to this from the original commenter.
In fact, I want an answer to this from the whole of “Western” society at large, and in particular, those in power.
All cultures are not equal.
Cultural conflict and cultural tension are real, and they can create chaos and bloodshed.
The nation-state was and is a protective entity for culture, but since its undermining, we see that European indigenes and inidgenes of all kinds are in danger from the self-righteous and triumphalist ideology of the Ummah.
The blood has been shed and is being shed.
I want an answer for it from those in power, and every person who enables them.
“Are you sure multiculturalism – the notion that all people of all backgrounds are equal under the one law of the land – is a problem?
You are describing a part of “Liberté – égalité – fraternité, the foundation of European political culture. It says that all people are “égal,” meaning equal, including women.
In contrast, multiculturalism says that all cultures are equal. No matter that some of the cultural differences impact destructively upon the equality of the better half of the human species – women, as is the case with the islamic culture steeped in its all pervasive religion/ideology. The Qur’an and its prophet proclaim in no uncertain terms that women are inferior to men. The same religion/ideology/culture holds all other religions, ideologies, and cultures as inferior to itself.
For that reason, cultures cannot be treated as equal under the law which bases on the three aforementioned principles, one of which is Equality. Islam recognizes neither of these principles. Multiculturalism clearly clashes with our duty, as free men, to promote the aforementioned principles. Therefore, multiculturalism is definitely wrong in its main postulate.
Research the Islamic concept of ‘takiyya’.
Satan’s forces can be quite cunning.
If multiculturalism applied equally to all individuals, you might have a point. It does not. It is only applied towards white people.
If multiculturalism applied equally to all sexes (multiculturalism defines at least three), you might have a point. It does not, it mostly applies to white males.
If multiculturalism applied equally to all cultures, you might have a point. It does not, it is only critical of cultures built by majorities of white people.
If multiculturalism applied equally to all religions, you might have a point. It does not, it clearly favors Islam, and puts Christianity at the bottom of the list (guess why…).
If multiculturalism applied equally to all ideologies, you might have a point. It does not, it clearly favors socialistic corporatism.
Bravo, Beach Bum.
A detailed explanation of why the multi-culti politically correct utopianism of the Left is in reality a morally bankrupt ideology that is designed to kill the west…and then the ‘victors’ will wage internecine warfare to their mutually assured destruction.
I am sick of these interesting times. Oh to return to boring times…
Exactly, Beach Bum. The word “Multiculturalism” is a fairly new “academic” invention – some sources say that it was invented in Canada in the early 70ies. I didn’t hear it in Sweden before the early 90ies. Just as the term “Islamophobia”, it is used politically to manipulate people and distract them from what’s going on.
Immigrants with a will to assimilate have never been a big problem anywhere in the western world throughout centuries. Xenophobia is not the problem – Islam is! The muslims don’t WANT to assimilate – they are violent invaders and have been so for 1400 years. So far they are doing good – both in Norway and in Sweden.
More particularly, the harm of multiculturalism only applies to denigration of one particular culture, that of Western Civilization. It really doesn’t matter how you depart from the tenets of individual freedom and personal responsibility, as long as you do so vigorously enough you will be considered “multicultural”.
Quote:
You are describing a part of “Liberté – égalité – fraternité, the foundation of European political culture. It says that all people are “égal,” meaning equal, including women.
In contrast, multiculturalism says that all cultures are equal.
end
I want an answer to this from the original commenter.
In fact, I want an answer to this from the whole of “Western” society at large, and in particular, those in power.
All cultures are not equal.
Cultural conflict and cultural tension are real, and they can create chaos and bloodshed.
The nation-state was and is a protective entity for culture, but since its undermining, we see that European indigenes and inidgenes of all kinds are in danger from the self-righteous and triumphalist ideology of the Ummah.
The blood has been shed and is being shed.
I want an answer for it from those in power, and every person who enables them.
Sharia is active and undermining British law.
The EU undermines all national laws in Europe.
You’ve set up too many systems, and you call it “harmony.”
Don’t be doe-eyed, this isn’t harmony. It’s chaos.
Multiculturalism/Cultural Marxism/Political Correctness is civilizational AIDS. It turns defense mechanisms against the host, turns reproduction into death, and eventually destroys the brain. Well before that, opportunistic infections set in and colonize the host.
Our cultural institutions have been set against us. Education, media, and pop culture are run by the left for the explicit purpose of a slow moving cultural revolution. The term “cultural revolution” is not hyperbole. Western Civiliation is to be degraded, our statues ground to dust, our icons toppled, and we are to do denounce ourselves. Those who speak out publicly are not yet shot. They merely run the risk of ostracism and financial ruin. Of course, some are occasionally imprisoned based on crimes the new regime concocted. And the only way for the accused to reduce their sentences is to denounce themselves and to denounce their allies. As for opportunistic infections, I mean Islam and Third World Immigration.
And now you see why I dare not post under my own name.
I’ve never seen multiculturalism defined as “the notion that all people of all backgrounds are equal under the one law of the land.”
Culture is not simply your “background”; it’s the way you conduct your life now. And not just you as an individual; the idea that an individual or a family can have its own “culture” surrounded by a dozen other “cultures” in a city block is nonsense. Culture involves the ways that large groups of people interact and maintain cohesiveness and identity. Culture sustains society.
Law is part of culture, or at least a product of culture. That’s why “multiculturalism” doesn’t put a high premium on “the one law of the land.” Instead, it demands that the law of the land be bent to accommodate the “cultural” demands of newcomers who dislike the law of the land; it even allows them to have their own law courts and develop parallel societies that want nothing to do with the larger society except to take the benefits it offers, or force it to be more like the parallel society.
Equality under the one law of the land has virtually nothing to do with multiculturalism.
— reply to Gerry Dorrian, by the way.
Blair’s daughter had her nose rubbed in it, too
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424794/Tony-Blairs-daughter-Kathryn-boyfriend-threatened-gun-robbery-terror.html
Thanks for the link,interesting to read.The comments by the security officer expressing his concerns for young miss Blair wandering around at night without protection is allmost touching……..allmost,if it wasn’t for
the security of countless people,young and old,beeing threatened daily as a consequence of the politics of daddy Blair himself .
Knowing the elites it is probably a political bio-seed, an empathetic vote-catching story of victimhood to be deployed in a future career move or political campaign.
We have a perfect psychotic storm where the concepts of postmodernism and Islam have run into one another. There are enough people who buy into these bad ideas–ideas that do not match reality–such that a significant percentage of the world is actually clinically mentally ill….just as it would be if a large number of us believed in witches and ghosts carrying evil succubi and spirits.
Pingback: FJORDMAN: ISLAMIZATION AND NORWAY’S 2013 ELECTIONS……. |
Multiculturalism – the criminal intent is the incremental genocide of the stupid white man through the debasement of culture and the disqualification of identity, then ultimately to be diminished to the dehumanising condition of disposable stock.
The Christian world is the real multicultural world. Its Scriptures were originally given in the three languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. –two Semitic, one Indo-European. It is a truly universal religion which, while having a “narrow” doctrinal and ethical path, permits a wide range of cultural expressions.
The so-called “multiculturalists” are nothing of the sort. They are uncultured boors who (in the USA, at least), can barely write a decent sentence of English, yet they call people like me, who reads Moses, Paul, and Kong Zi in their original languages, “racist” at the drop of a hat. These post-modern poseurs are in fact anti-cultural nihilists. Their embrace of homosexuality and “alternative” lifestyles, willingness to expose children to such, and a hatred that would ally them with Muslims who’d kill them against Christians who’d just preach to them and pray for them is proof enough that they are simply suicidal.
More to the point, Western Civilization is the first to develop the notion of using individual behavior rather than cultural affiliation as the sole basis in law of determining criminality.
That “multiculturalism” demands we abandon this principle of the law judging individuals according to their own actions rather than by cultural affiliation is a measure of its claims.