Deconstructing Heine Fjordland

Heine Fjordland

“Heine Fjordland”, as you may remember, is the Norwegian state broadcaster’s idea of a joke. He is NRK’s depiction of a right-wing Norwegian blogger — obviously intended to parody Fjordman — as a Nazi paraplegic in a wheelchair who types his diatribes with a stick held in his mouth.

In one of his responses to media attacks, Fjordman pointed out how insulting the “Fjordland” satire was to handicapped people. He found it a surprising move by the state broadcaster, considering how hyper-PC the Norwegian media are. But Norwegian media analysts don’t agree with his assessment. Their analysis of the semiotics of the Nazi paraplegic finds him not at all insulting to any protected group.

Here’s Kitman’s summary of a report on the topic from Dagbladet:

“Heine Fjordland”: The Public Broadcaster’s portrayal of Fjordman as crippled Nazi Subject of intense debate

The writer Jan Grue recently criticized the “Fjordland” character in an article. Not because it mocked a blogger persecuted for his political views, of course, but because it indirectly mocks the multi-handicapped and thus “equates inner evil with outer shortcomings”.

Now Inger Merete Hobbelstad has taken it upon herself to defend the Fjordland character. In her analysis she delves into the “deeper meaning” it supposedly carries.

She says, “Fjordland is a parody combining Third Reich uniforms with a fertile abundance of physical handicaps. A character who airs his rage against society with the help of the mouth-stick he needs for typing, all the while being kept warm by the cozy fire supplied by the welfare state… the multi-handicaps are not the defining trait of Heine Fjordland; they must be understood metaphorically.

“Fjordland bites viciously at the hand that feeds him. The essential thing is the inner realm, the hatefulness.”

She further argues that “The Fjordland character says nothing about the public broadcaster’s attitude towards the multi-handicapped…” Lars Ødegård, the general secretary of the Organisation of the Disabled in Norway, views the program the same way. He perceives the character as mocking intolerant opinions, not users of wheelchairs. When asked about it he said, “We [the handicapped] are proud to be able to contribute as a group”…

11 thoughts on “Deconstructing Heine Fjordland

  1. We [the handicapped] are proud to be able to contribute as a group”

    Norway’s creepy totalitarian culture has handicapped the thinking of its citizens all the way down.

    This “group speak” is pathetic beyond words.

  2. Mulsims bite viciously at the hand that feeds him. The essential thing is the inner realm, the hatefulness.”


    And by the way, how do they know Fjordman is entirely dependent on welfare? As I recall, he had a job and recieved quite a lot of help online when he asked for some in order to move house.

  3. Hey, Norway is the best country in the world to live in. Australia would have beaten it, but has lower average income. The fact that we also have (so far as I understand) lower taxes as well, so that our income goes further, doesn’t seem to count.

  4. Hi, I am relatively new to these forums, so please excuse my rather stupid question. What does PC actually mean, as in “considering how hyper-PC the Norwegian media are”? Thanks in advance.

  5. The Fjordland character exsposes and is a spoiler for the final act of the multicult malicious script.

    Readers from the U.K. will instantly recognise the uniform crimminalising of the indigenous welfare recipient, in the Norwegian case it is the Nazi uniform in the British case it is the vertically striped fraudsters uniform.

    Both of the uniform hate characterisations are representations of liberation from multikulti ultraliberalism, in Fjordman’s case it as a political subversive and in the U.K. it is the subversion of economic incapacity – failure to realize the ultraliberal slave model.

    Fjordman as a multikulti ultraliberal vehicle to express the hatred for incapacity and welfare – you really could not make this suff-up, puts Iain Duncan Smith’s anti-welfare propaganda to shame.

  6. To Jolie Rouge:

    I really don’t understand your examples. Why would a welfare state malign an indigenous welfare recipient? Your drift is simply unclear.

    To Peter G.

    If I can elaborate a bit, “Politically Correct” is a philosophy that being a member of the group, or society, depends on holding certain opinions. One example is that PC enforcers attempt to malign the character, or decency, of people who are opposed to open immigration.

    The exact term “politically correct”, was coined by a Communist. It is used as a tool to enforce opinions that the Communist Party wishes to spread. One of the defining characteristics of “political correctness” is that it overtly discourages any rational analysis of the opinions in question. Thus, adherence to political correctness becomes a belief system, serving to define a group rather than to attain truth.

    The left does not have a monopoly on this system of thought enforcement, of course, but the left is probably the most skilled practitioner of group-think…except for Islam. Islam makes no secrets about enforcing its views through violence and legalized murder. Some people think that the common use of group-thought in place of analysis is what attracts leftists to ally themselves with Muslims, although even the most superficial analysis of Islamic doctrine is diametrically opposed to the opinions that the left supposedly holds.

    But, in political correctness, it is the holding of opinions in common, rather than the particular opinion, that defines insiders and outsiders.

  7. P.S.

    The incapacitated and economically marginalised dissenter using technology to liberate himself from the multikulti ultraliberal society and the (Nazi) uniform they have dressed him in. I love the Fjordland antihero character.

  8. Seneca III attempted to post a comment, but was foiled by Google’s intransigence. Here’s what he wanted to say:


    It’s a technique almost as old as language; “That which you fear first ridicule, then demonise.”

    More than anything else this parody of journalism provides us with a lens through which we can view in detail the mind-set of the self-damned and to which we can respond thus:

    “We don’t mind if you hate us, for now we know that you fear us. As well you should.”

  9. RonaldB,

    “Why would a welfare state malign an indigenous welfare recipient?”

    That is the question, in short these are not the welfare states of the post-war consensus, indeed in essence the U.K. welfare state was destroyed decacdes ago.

    As with most European institutions the welfare structures were usurped as a means to an end, and that end is not the welfare of the indigenous populations but the advancement of progressive multiculturism.

    The multikultis are adept at utilising western institutions (in this case welfare) and then when they have exhausted them convincing their opponents that those institutions are no longer fit for purpose and should be destroyed.

    Benefit Thieves!

Comments are closed.