In Defence of Fjordman and Hans Rustad

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer sends this guest-post about the repressive political climate in Norway. His essay has also been published at his blog.

Ummah Norway

In defence of Fjordman and Hans Rustad
by The Observer

In the aftermath of the Oslo attacks on July 22, 2011, there has been a concerted effort to silence individuals who are opposed to the new multicultural Norwegian society. Vile accusations and libellous epithets have been allowed to dominate the media headlines in the months following the attacks. The instigators behind this formidable intimidation campaign are members of the extreme left who are unscrupulously capitalizing on a terrorist attack which cost 77 lives. These individuals have absolutely no qualms about exploiting such an event as long as it benefits their cause, which is to quash anyone voicing their displeasure of the new multicultural society in Norway, by any means necessary. Their preferred method is to publicly crush those who dare question them in their quest to deconstruct Norwegian society and replace it with a hardcore multicultural socialist dystopia, so that others with similar views remain silent out of fear of receiving the same harsh treatment.

In one of the lowest exhibits of human behaviour ever to be witnessed in Norway, members of the extreme left have taken an active role in accusing conservative political commentators such as Fjordman and Hans Rustad of having influenced (brainwashed) Anders Behring Breivik into committing one of the worst atrocities in Norwegian history. The accusations are insidious because they are by nature very hard to verify or to reject, and they are equally hard to defend against as they are based on emotional dishonesty rather than logical reasoning. The sole argument made by these left-wing extremists is that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad through their legitimate critique of Norwegian authorities’ attitudes towards immigration and willingness to appease the Muslim community have created Breivik the terrorist. One is left with the impression that it’s a punishable offence these days in Norway to tell the truth, at least if you’re a conservative political commentator.

What really exemplifies the dishonesty of the extreme left more than anything else is its complete and utter disregard for the truth. Anyone who has read the articles of Fjordman and Mr. Rustad will attest that the two have never advocated violence or tried to justify in any way the use of terrorist methods. As a matter of fact they have both strongly condemned the use of terrorist methods adopted by Islamic terrorists, and the fact that they have both been so adamant in their opposition to such methods from day one clearly proves without a shadow of a doubt that they both vehemently condemn the actions of Breivik. But despite this obvious fact the accusations from the extreme left continue with unabated force, which clearly shows that there are other motivations behind these vile accusations than unearthing the truth.

So let’s take a step back and look at it from a more logical perspective. The fact of the matter is that these vile accusations by the extreme left have never been subjected to any proper scientific analysis to ascertain whether they carry any clout or not. The truth is that these accusations were first made by a handful of individuals on the left with a very clear anti-conservative agenda the minute it became clear that the perpetrator was a right-wing non-Muslim. The accusations have since been repeated incessantly and they have eventually been accepted as the truth. And the media in Norway have played a vital part in helping cement these claims. These accusations are also in stark contrast to the normal admonishing by the extreme left after Islamic terrorist attacks in which people are being cautioned not to stigmatise all Muslims as a result of the evil deeds of a fanatical minority, something which I’ve highlighted in previous essays.

So let’s put these accusations under the microscope and examine them a little more closely. One thing that the media in Norway deliberately have chosen not to point out is that none of the individuals who instigated these accusations have ever met Breivik. The media have also failed to point out that none of these instigators have had the opportunity to conduct a thorough psychiatric evaluation of Breivik, nor that they have the necessary expertise or credentials in making any diagnosis of the terrorist. But even so their assertions that Breivik was influenced by Fjordman and Mr. Rustad go unchallenged by the media. The fact of the matter is that the court-appointed psychiatrists who were given the task of examining Breivik and who eventually concluded that he was insane have refrained from making any such claims. If the psychiatrists who examined Breivik aren’t subscribing to these accusations then why do the media persist in printing them? The truth is that no one can be held accountable for the actions of a mentally deranged individual. A person who is insane is by definition incapable of making rational decisions, hence no one can be held accountable for his lack of such.

If these left wing agitators were sincere, and had a genuine desire to uncover Breivik’s true motivations for carrying out the atrocities, they would be better off studying his online manifesto, in which he describes in great detail the reasoning behind his actions. In the manifesto Breivik states that he has been compelled to act as a result of Western governments’ suicidal immigration and appeasement policies, which he believes will cause the end of Western Civilisation. No one in their right mind can claim that it was Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who opened up the European borders. That responsibility lies solely on the shoulders of various European politicians and bureaucrats. I’ll admit that I haven’t read the entire manifesto, but I’m pretty confident that Breivik doesn’t mention that it was Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who urged him to do what he did.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad write almost entirely about things that they read about in the media. When Fjordman writes about a non-western rape epidemic in Oslo it’s because the media in Norway have brought it to his attention. Fjordman only responds to the media’s coverage of these events. And when Fjordman writes about street robberies and other acts of violence perpetrated by non-western immigrants it’s because the media in Norway have brought it to his attention. And when Fjordman writes about the undemocratic shenanigans of the Muslim community it’s because the media initially decided to shed some light on it. And last but not least when Fjordman writes about the very real possibility that Norwegians could end up as a minority in their own country it’s because the Norwegian media has presented documentation and statistics that support such a scenario.

Anyone who has read Fjordman’s and Mr. Rustad’s essays regarding Scandinavia will quickly discover that they base their writings on newspaper accounts from Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The media claim that the duo helped create Breivik, but a more accurate claim would be that the media heavily influenced the work of both Fjordman and Mr. Rustad, and all the other individuals who write about these issues for that matter. Why? Because they (Fjordman and Mr . Rustad) simply react to the news presented to them by the media. If the media chose not to write about immigrant crime, Muslim demographic trends and the countless of stories detailing the anti-democratic mindset of large portions of the Muslim community it’s highly unlikely that there would be bloggers covering these issues at all.

And are the Norwegian media really trying to convince us that they didn’t expect that people would get agitated and form a negative view of non-western immigrants when they the media keep writing on a daily basis about how non-western immigrants engage in the gang rape of Norwegian women, or describe in vivid detail how these immigrants commit violence against ethnic Norwegians? And did the media seriously expect that people wouldn’t get agitated when the media publish articles in which Muslims claim that they will eventually seize control in Norway and introduce Islamic Sharia laws?

If one were to follow the logic of the media, which claim that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad were somehow responsible for brainwashing Breivik into carrying out these atrocities by their writings, one would then also naturally have to deflect the majority of the responsibility back onto the media in Norway, because they were the ones who initially influenced Fjordman and Mr. Rustad. If we were to follow the logic of these leftwing agitators the only reasonable deduction would be that the media were the ones who initially created an ‘environment’ where ‘hatred’ towards non-western immigrants, and Muslims in particular, was allowed to flourish as a result of their thousands of articles ‘depicting’ these individuals in a ‘bad’ light over the last few decades. Or maybe we should just accept that the media through their articles regarding the matter of immigrant crime are only depicting the reality in multicultural Norway? And perhaps we should also accept that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad are only engaging in the act of commenting on this new reality?

Are the media in Norway seriously trying to convince us that they have no culpability in influencing Breivik to commit these crimes by publishing critical articles about non-western immigrants, but that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who have simply been linking to the newspaper articles published by the same media somehow are? That is logical fallacy, and it simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. If they keep insisting on trying to pin the blame on Fjordman and Mr. Rustad then they have to stand up and accept equal responsibility, which of course they will never do.

In my opinion one of the reasons why the media in Norway is targeting Fjordman in particular is because they’re envious of his international success. Fjordman has gained considerable international recognition for his work. His articles have been read by millions of people around the globe, and that is something that the journalists in Norway who ridicule him will never be able to achieve. In fact most of them are third rate reporters incapable of producing high quality journalistic work. The majority are only capable of writing frivolous sensationalism, and they simply act as mouthpieces for the political establishment. They know it, and that’s why they keep attacking Fjordman. In their mind if they can’t enjoy the same success that Fjordman has enjoyed then he shouldn’t be able to enjoy it either. It was a big thorn in their side that ever since Fjordman started blogging in 2005, they were unable to uncover his true identity. If they had they would have been able to silence him a lot sooner by publicly slandering him an intimidating him to remain silent. When Fjordman finally revealed his identity the media finally got their opportunity, and they have been busy slandering him ever since. The final nail in the coffin would be for him to be convicted in a court of law for being an ‘accomplice’ of Breivik. Only then would they be able to rest.

Another point that I want to quickly touch upon is Breivik himself. It is of a more hypothetical nature, and I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, but it is a thought that has crossed my mind, and that I haven’t heard anyone else discussing it. My hypothesis is this: what if Breivik is only pretending to be insane in order to avoid doing time in prison? It is common knowledge that the Norwegian prison system has a huge number of non-Western inmates. For someone like Breivik, who clearly despises non-Westerners, it would be a cruel punishment to have to live the rest of his life alongside such individuals. Would the possibility of being placed in a psychiatric ward where the majority of the patients are of Norwegian stock be a more tempting alternative for him? And would it with time be easier for Breivik to escape from a psychiatric unit than from a maximum security prison?

Would Breivik be capable of fooling the psychiatrists into believing that he is mentally unstable? I believe that he could. Breivik has shown that he is very capable of detailed planning and that he has the patience required for meticulous research. Who’s to say that he hasn’t planned for this scenario all along? I would imagine that anyone who has studied a textbook dealing with basic psychiatry would be able to recognise the various symptoms of mental illnesses. Once again, I don’t know if there is any basis for making such claims, but it’s an interesting theory nonetheless.

It’s also common knowledge at least in Norway that is, that Norwegian authorities in the past have silenced individuals who they have perceived to be enemies by having them diagnosed as mentally unstable and locking them up in psychiatric wards. For anyone who wants to learn more about it, I would suggest that they do some online research on the Arnold Juklerød case.

8 thoughts on “In Defence of Fjordman and Hans Rustad

  1. Well, I for one would be cautious about suggesting that the media should be even more dishonest and biased than they already are. Ultimately, it is the most socially visible and outspoken Muslims that have created a negative impression of Islam and have stirred fear and resulting hatred of themselves. If people are making up stories about me that are simply not true (as the media are doing to Fjordman) then I am not the one that has caused any fear or hatred of me that comes about. The ‘actions’ to which people are responding with those emotions were not committed by myself in that case, they are the invention of others, and those others must bear the blame for the natural response.

    I would also be cautious about to readily granting that Breivik is ‘fooling’ the medical professionals examining him. They have evidently been told to come back with a pronouncement of insanity, and they delivered. The lack of controversy or any attempt by the state to seek a reexamination of the diagnosis is a strong indication that those in power are the ones who want to cast Breivik as a deluded lunatic rather than a deliberate mass-murderer. Every fact about this case known to me screams that no competent examiner could have reasonably come to an independent conclusion that Breivik is insane or lacking in total control over his actions. If Breivik acted during these examinations in a manner consistent with his behavior during the massacre and while cooperating with law-enforcement agents to build a complete picture of the events of the slaughter, then it would be impossible to honestly say he was insane in a clinical sense. If his behavior was inconsistent, then it would be obvious he was being deceptive.

    So I cannot accept the theory that Breivik is somehow fooling everyone. Those examining him are the stooges of people that want Breivik treated to a life of comfort and ease. And those people appear to be currently holding a very significant degree of official government power in Norway.

    Chiu Chun-Ling.

  2. Wouldnt it be nice if these folks put the same sort of scrutiny on the people and ideology that is behind Muslim behavior (honor killings, raping kuffar women, muslim supremacy, killing apostates, serial attacks on journalists, artists, cartoonists, academics, politicians who run afoul of Islam, and so on and so forth)?

  3. The double standards employed by the Norwegian media are obvious enough to anyone who looks at their behaviour logically.

    Fjordman wrote descriptive essays detailing the conditions of his own society.

    Fjordman made no claims to be a deity or to have been inspired by an angel.

    Islamic terrorists on the other hand, state very clearly that they have read the koran, and that book is not a descriptive document but a detailed set of authoritative commands.

    The author – or at least the person who recorded it for others to write down – claimed to be a prophet, the final prophet ever in fact.

    The koran was supposedly told by an angel to the recipient.

    So the very nature of Fjordman’s essays means that it is not possible for any sane person to react to having read one in the way AB did.

    Whereas the very nature of Islam’s “holy book” means that it is possible for Islamic terrorists to justify their actions by referring to its contents.

    Why don’t the Norwegian media spent some time examining the reading material of Islamic terrorists then?

    After all, how many Islamic terrorist attacks have there been since 9/11?

  4. Well, that much is certain. One does not write a manifesto before going on a killing spree without the conscious intention that the manifesto should become the object of public interest because of the killing spree.

    The real question is, what was the real intention behind using a mass-slaughter of Norwegian schoolchildren to promote this manifesto?

    Chiu Chun-Ling.

  5. Isn’t the only way to defeat the socialists, to fight fire with fire? Use the same arguments against them; choose significant occurrences that came about because of the lack of political awareness and blame it on socialism. In fact, that would almost certainly be telling the truth. I suppose what I’m saying is that if we the normal people want to win this war, then virtually any means available should be deployed against the socialists, wherever they rear their ugly heads.

  6. Unfortunately, the most potent weapon of the socialist is the appeal to collective rights and collective guilt. This vastly simplifies the tasks they face in dealing with enemies and appealing to constituents.

    Collective punishment has long been a staple of tyrannical governments. It vastly simplifies the problem of identifying the guilty…you don’t have to pick out an individual, just punish everyone that shares some identified characteristic of the perpetrator. It also avoids sticky problems like confronting the individuals dangerous enough to have committed a given crime and lets you target the most helpless instead.

    Breivik’s actions are out of the socialist playbook…and their response is what one would expect, to punish everyone critical of the gross treason of the ruling elite rather than focus on the actual perpetrator. Muslim terrorists (like all terrorists, by nature) use collective punishment because it is easy and requires no thought. It actually requires one to not think about some fairly obvious facts of human nature and individuality.

    No, the methods of socialists cannot be made to serve the lover of individual freedom and personal dignity.

    Chiu Chun-Ling.

  7. A cautionary warning:

    Hans Rustad is not necessarily on the good side.

    On his website he has chastized Fjordman for his antisystem rhetoric and his writings potening a breakdown of the established institutions.

    Rustad also defends really totalitarian policies such as logging of all internet trafick.

    He is an authoritarian statist and no friend of liberty.

    Among Norwegian and Scandinavian antijihadis he is well known for stabbing patriots in
    the back.

Comments are closed.