I had planned a follow-up post on last night’s “Punching Down”, but work — real work, the paying kind — intervened. The post is about half-written, and will be finished sometime tomorrow, God willing and the Creek don’t rise.

And now for the news: The Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram broke into a church in northern Nigeria and attacked the congregants with automatic weapons. At least six people were killed, including the pastor’s wife, and another ten were injured.

In other news, the prosecution in the trial of Hosni Mubarak is asking for the death penalty, saying that the former president of Egypt incited murder during last year’s protests in Tahrir Square.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Fjordman, JP, KGS, Kitman, Nilk, SB, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

When the Los Angeles arsonist was first arrested, I mentioned that he was not a culture-enricher, since he clearly had a European name and was of German extraction. It seems I may have been too hasty: Harry Burkhart is indeed a German citizen, but was born in Chechnya.

Vlad was suspicious all along. As he said earlier today:

It’s not rocket science:

Car burning + “I hate America” = Muslim@90%

Mr. Burkhart is a suspect in a series of similar arson attacks in Frankfurt. However, he may not be extradited to Germany for a while, since Los Angeles prosecutors are planning to throw the book at him.

He also seems to have a screw or two loose. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below are excerpts from an article in Business Week with more information on the Harry Burkhart case:

Los Angeles Arson Suspect Needs Deputies’ Help to Stand in Court

Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) — A man accused of setting a series of fires that terrorized Los Angeles over New Year’s weekend needed the help of deputies to stand at his first court appearance as new information surfaced about his home life.

Harry Burkhart, 24, appeared pale and unwell at the hearing at the state criminal courthouse in Los Angeles. He didn’t enter a plea on the 37 counts of arson that he’s charged with, saying only “yes” through a German interpreter when the judge asked whether he understood he had a right to be arraigned yesterday and when he agreed to a postponement.

California Superior Court Judge Upinder Kalra rescheduled the arraignment for Jan. 24 and set bail at $2.85 million, denying a request by prosecutors that Burkhart, a German citizen born in Chechnya, be held without bail. Burkhart’s public defender, Gustavo Sztraicher, said after the hearing that it was unlikely his client would be able to post bail. [emphasis added]

Sztraicher declined to comment on the charges.

After Burkhart’s mother was arrested on Dec. 29, he went on an arson spree that lasted until his own arrest on Jan. 2, Deputy District Attorney Sean Carney said at yesterday’s hearing. Burkhart may have set as many as 52 fires by putting incendiary devices under the engines of parked cars, many of which were parked in carports of apartment buildings, Carney said.

‘Hatred of Americans’

“He has a hatred of Americans,” Carney told the judge. “This defendant engaged in a campaign of terror.”

It’s comforting, in a morbid sort of way, to discover that the Occupy movement in Denmark is just as progressive and witless as its counterparts in the USA and Canada. We’re all different, yet all the same!

Below is an interview with Røsle Dyre, the spokeswoman for Occupy Copenhagen, whose head seems to be filled with styrofoam pellets from ear to ear.

Many thanks to Nicolai Sennels for recording and subtitling this video:

The following French video report shows the continuing resistance by Islamic countries at the United Nations to any meaningful discussion of sharia, or of the incompatibility of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Many thanks to Bear for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Reversing decades of official American government policy, but confirming everything we’ve always suspected about President Hussein, the Obama administration has decided that it will do outreach to and work with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Is our president a Muslim? What difference does it make?

In economic news, a French government minister says the EU will impose a financial transaction tax by the end of the year, despite the opposition of the British government. Across the Atlantic, the sovereign debt of the United States surpassed 100% of GDP just before the end of last year.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Fjordman, Insubria, JP, J-PD, Kitman, Seneca III, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

In a comment on Fjordman’s open letter to the Norwegian prime minister, Whiskey had this to say:

The PM is scared. Very scared. Why else “punch downwards” at … a blogger?

Really? It would be like Obama complaining about… Ace of Spades or Steve Sailer.

I think Glenn Reynolds wrote about this … totalitarian states (Norway no exception) suppress real opinions and then, when weak, suffer “preference collapse” as true opinion becomes known. See Egypt, Libya, many places in China.

The PM is scared. When the EU collapses, and China bids up food prices even higher, no one will want to die for PC and multiculturalism. Neither will they want to be poor and starve for it (so Muslims coming as conquerors can have more). The easiest solution in hard times is to kick out the outsiders — Muslims.

This is elementary, and someone on the Left claiming a national mantle will obviously claim it. Hence the fear, and making an example of Fjordman. That’s extraordinary.

Punching down.

This is an excellent analysis of what is happening in Norway and the rest of the Multicultural West. Fear is in the air.

Fear of what Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff had to say about Islam prompted the Austrian authorities to prosecute her for “denigrating” the Religion of Peace.

Fear of Tommy Robinson’s grassroots appeal has driven the British government to suppress him and the English Defence League with all the force of the law, the state, and the media.

Fearing the truths told by Geert Wilders, the Dutch government prosecuted the PVV leader, and when that failed, prosecuted him again.

In Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Australia, and Belgium, ordinary citizens and politicians alike have been harassed or prosecuted for speaking out against Islamization and mass immigration.

Fjordman drew more wrath than most, and not just because of Anders Behring Breivik, whose murderous spree made Fjordman a convenient scapegoat and placed him in the crosshairs of the Norwegian state. Fjordman does not just criticize immigration, Multiculturalism, and Islam: he also flenses the protective skin from the modern socialist welfare state, revealing its rotten totalitarian entrails.

His core message — that the traditional nations and cultures of Europe are being systematically and deliberately destroyed by the continent’s traitorous leaders — must be suppressed and discredited at all costs. Hence the fear. Hence the “disproportionate response”. Hence the no-holds-barred attacks on people like Fjordman.

The ad-hominoids sent by the state media to do battle with Fjordman were no match for his erudition and expert analysis, so Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg himself was dispatched to denounce the young upstart in a speech to the nation.

That’s the sorry pass to which Norway has come.

And not just Norway: the rest of Europe as well.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In its attempt to destroy Fjordman and people like him, the European establishment is thwarting a last-ditch attempt to prevent its own destruction.

This is because Fjordman — like the rest of us in the Transatlantic Counterjihad — is a humane, decent, law-abiding person.

He has respect for civil society.

He believes in the rule of law.

This is not true of everyone whose overriding goal is to preserve the traditional nation-states of Europe and the European diaspora. Not everyone who loves his homeland is civil, non-violent, and law-abiding. As Whiskey points out, when the decent law-abiding people are thrust aside, crushed, driven into obscurity, and jailed, what sort of activists will remain?

The current system is nearing its endgame, and will not persist much longer. Who will take the reins of power when the dominant paradigm falls?

By suppressing Fjordman, and Elisabeth, and Geert, and Tommy — by denying decent, honorable, law-abiding people the right to preserve themselves, their families, and their way of life — the Powers That Be have cleared the deck for the emergence of forces that are much darker, much more ruthless, and far beyond their ability to control.

Something wicked this way comes.

I’ll have more to say on this topic tomorrow.

The Marxist doctrine of Politically Correct Multiculturalism — which is now ascendant virtually throughout the West — emphasizes the indoctrination of children through the media, the schools, and even the day-care centers. Program them young, and they’re programmed for life.

The video below is a sample of multiculti indoctrination for little kids from Finnish television. It has been somewhat — ahem — enhanced by Vlad Tepes. Many thanks to KGS for the translation:

New Year festivities in the Netherlands became quite violent, although not as violent as in previous years. Boisterous young people started knife fights, vandalized businesses, torched cars, and even threw Molotov cocktails at the police. That last excess prompted the justice minister to admonish the revelers that their actions were “not really a party”.

In financial news, Belgium saw a record number of bankruptcies in 2011. Meanwhile, the jobless rate in Spain has hit a fifteen-year high. Finance Minister Luis de Guindos says that Spain’s financial position in 2012 could turn out to be even worse than previously predicted.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Fjordman, Insubria, JP, Kitman, Nilk, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Nigeria is an example of a country on the cusp of becoming Islamic: its population is now about 50% Muslim. As a result, it is subject to continuous low-level internecine warfare, punctuated by occasional flare-ups into massive violence, such as the Christmas Day bombings that killed dozens of people.

Yet Nigeria is not a true nation. It is not a homogeneous ethnic and cultural entity, but simply a patchwork relic of British colonialism. If it had formed naturally, it would consist of at least two states: a northern one (mostly Muslim) and a southern one (mostly non-Muslim).

The devout Muslims of northern Nigeria, as represented by the terrorist group Boko Haram (“Western education is a sin”), are now trying to create a de facto sharia state in their portion of the country. That’s what the Christmas Day bombings were about. And now the follow-up is an effort to drive the Christians out of the north and into the south.

Here’s the story from Asia News:

Boko Haram Gives Three Day Ultimatum to the Christians to Flee Northern Nigeria

The “Nigerian Taliban” also advise Muslims in the south to return to the north because they risk being killed by soldiers. Thousands of Christians fleeing. The bishops reject the sectarian drift of the conflict and ask for more security, but also no retaliation.

Lagos (AsiaNews / Agencies) – Christians in northern Nigeria have three days to leave the area before a series of attacks against them: This is the ultimatum set by the radical Islamic sect Boko Haram, which has claimed responsibility for the massacres that took place Christmas day in 12 sites across the states of Yobe and Borno (northeast), Niger (West), Plateau (central Nigeria). The killings have claimed the lives of over 40 people and already thousands of Christians are fleeing in terror.

The ultimatum comes a few days after the decision by President Goodluck Jonathan (a Christian) to declare a state of emergency for the areas attacked, with the deployment of armed soldiers.

It’s interesting that Boko Haram consider it necessary to advise Muslims to flee the south of Nigeria and move north:

The ultimatum also includes advice to the Muslims in the south to flee towards the north (which is Muslim majority) to avoid becoming a victim of attacks by soldiers.

A spokesman for Boko Haram, Abul Qaqa, told the media that “our Muslim brothers are advised to return to the north, because we have evidence that they will be attacked. We also issue a three-day ultimatum to the southerners living in the north of Nigeria, to leave. We have serious indications to suggest that the soldiers only kill the innocent Muslims in areas where government has declared a state of emergency. We will face them decisively to protect our brothers.”

The proposed Islamic hijra to the north is, of course, only temporary: Muslims will return to the south to continue their conquest when the prospects of victory are more propitious. But the cleansing of the infidel from the North will be permanent.

The bishops of Nigeria, like bishops almost everywhere, are living in a dream world in which Christians may coexist peaceably with large numbers of Muslims:

The bishops of Nigeria have always rejected the idea of a sectarian war in the country, a major producer of oil and coveted prey for both Middle Eastern and Western governments.

Regarding the ultimatum against the Christians in the North, the Bishop of Jos, Msgr. Ignatius Ayau Kaigama, interviewed by Vatican Radio, has asked the government to ensure the safety of the population, but also not to carry out “reprisals”. “We say no to retaliation – he said – and we continue to preach peace, hoping that all of us in Nigeria, Muslims and Christians, we will be able to work and live happily together. This is our position: no to violence, no to retaliation. We want to live in peace.”

Yes, we all do. At least all of us Christians.

But Islam does not permit peace, not until the unbeliever has been defeated, and pays the jizya with willing submission, and feels himself subdued.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The article about Nigeria reminded me of several other news stories that came in today from much farther north, in Sweden. The first one is from Swedish state radio:

Another Fatal Shooting in Malmö

A man in his 50’s has been shot to death in the southern Swedish city of Malmö – the fifth such fatality in recent times. The police maintain that the victim is known to the police but has not been charged with any major crimes. Luciano Astudillo, a former Social Democrat Party member of parliament who lives and grew up in Malmö, has helped organise an anti-gang and gun crime demonstration to take place in the city on Friday.

“The citizens of Malmö have had enough. We have had a war going on for the last year. Until now they have killed each other but sooner or later there will be a bullet killing a civilian and we are concerned about that, we have do to something about illegal weapons and organized crime,” he told Radio Sweden.

Malmö Chief Superintendent Henrik Stiernblad told Radio Sweden that they were doing everything they could to stop the killings. “It is worrying for the public and impact on their sense of security but we are taking additional measures now to make sure that we don’t see a trend developing, we will stop this.” Henrik Stiernblad said that the murder investigation of the 15-year-old was progressing well and the public were coming forward to help.

What the article does not mention, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in Malmö are committed by the culturally-enriched “youths” that live in the Muslim no-go zones in the Rosengård suburb. It would be more accurate to say that the Swedish authorities are doing everything they can to stop the violence — except calling a halt to mass Muslim immigration.

There has also been trouble in Stockholm:

Stockholm: Police Face Stones and Lasers After Car Pursuit

Twelve police units and one helicopter were called to Stockholm suburb Rinkeby last night as youths reportedly pelted police with stones. No injuries were reported. Swedish Radio News described the scene as one of “uproar” as about 50 people assembled after police had followed a car which they thought was stolen. As the police left the area near a school, the protesters set fire to the car they had been tracking.

The additional 12 units that were called in kept their distance from the scene. Police personnel in the helicopter reported that pocket lasers were aimed at them. There have been no arrests and police told Swedish Radio News they stood by their decision to not enter the area.

Once again, the article makes no mention of the ethnicity of the “youths”. But Rinkeby is a largely immigrant suburb notorious for its gang violence.

Finally, a report that tries to paper over the real causes of the violence in Sweden’s culturally enriched suburbs. When it’s not poverty or lack of education or racism, it’s… the availability of guns!

As if those blond-haired, blue-eyed young “persons of Swedish background” would be out there shooting up everything and everybody, if only they could get their hands on a Glock!

Once again, from Swedish state radio:

Sweden: Shootings Spate Tied to Availability of Weapons

The lethal shooting of a 15-year-old in Malmö on New Year’s Eve, the third fatal gun crime in the city in a short span of time, is being tied to the high number of illegal weapons in circulation in the southern border city. Henrik Stiernblad, at Malmö police’s crime prevention department, tells Swedish Radio News: “Apart from the usual socio-economic and other causes of crime the weapons play an incredibly important role”.

Many of Malmö’s murders are tied to criminal gang activity but police has not found evidence to link the killing of the 15-year-old to the gangs. Police believe many of the weapons are smuggled in from the continent, as Malmö lies 20 minutes away from the Danish capital Copenhagen.

Whether intentional or accidental, unremitting violent crime will have the same effect in Malmö and Rinkeby that it has in Abuja: non-Muslims will tend to depart for quieter, less culturally-enriched zones, and those who remain behind will feel themselves subdued.

Hat tips: C. Cantoni, Fjordman.

Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League, appeared on Michael Coren’s program tonight on SUN TV. As you can see, Tommy still has his shiner, and during his interview he goes into some detail explaining what happened to him in Luton that night just before Christmas.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Yesterday Tommy released a somewhat longer account as part of his New Year’s message to the EDL, which may he seen (WARNING: salty language) here.

Rather than update again that earlier post on the shenanigans of our Commonwealth’s Republican Party, here’s an exerpt of the latest from Richard Faulknor at Blue Ridge Forum.

I have used his post and put in his italics, but the links he included are at his original essay:

“Political Class” Keeps the Reins: AG Pivots on Primary Fix

As we noted last night, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli backed off his call for emergency legislation “expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.”

The Republican leadership of the General Assembly was –not unexpectedly — less than enthusiastic about Mr. Cuccinelli’s proposal. Readers may find of possibly related interest the announcement last Thursday of Romney supporters in the Virginia General Assembly and among Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) leaders.

Former state senator Cuccinelli said yesterday –

“However, after working through different scenarios with Republican and Democratic leaders to attempt to make changes in time for the 2012 presidential election, my concern grows that we cannot find a way to make such changes fair to the Romney and Paul campaigns that qualified even with Virginia’s burdensome system.”

Getting “Concerns” Right

Conservatives should certainly commend Mr. Cuccinelli for his Saturday initiative to try to fix the primary mess, but bring him to a better mind on his “concern . . . that we cannot find a way to make such changes fair to the Romney and Paul campaigns. . . .”

The overriding concern should be to make real choice available to GOP voters in the March 6 presidential primary — not to give such solicitude to two campaigns that developed expertise in surmounting Virginia’s Rube Goldberg rules here and here and navigating the questionable implementation of these rules confronting serious GOP candidates. The objective is not to take care of fellow members of the Political Class, but to ensure voters have an opportunity to choose one of the major national candidates in the March 6 GOP Virginia primary.

The 2012 presidential election is a watershed election for America’s future — and certainly in the minds of Virginia conservatives. Most Virginia conservatives would agree that this election is vastly more important than the image of the Republican Party of Virginia or the advancement of its sachems.

Be sure to read the rest here.

The Los Angeles car arsonist has finally been caught. Contrary to what some people expected, he is not a culture-enricher, but a young man of European extraction who was angry about the way the authorities were handling his mother’s immigration status. He is now in police custody.

In other news, Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has defended last summer’s London rioters again, saying that we should show them love, and thereby help them to flourish.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Fjordman, Gaia, Insubria, Kitman, Nilk, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

We’ve written in the past about Øyvind Strømmen, who until recently was an obscure left-wing writer in Norway. Last fall he rode the coattails of Anders Behring Breivik to fame with the publication of his book about the networks of “right-wing extremists” in Europe.

A translated review of Mr. Strømmen’s book The Dark Net has just been posted at Tundra Tabloids. The original piece was published last Friday at Document.No.

Many thanks to Cecilie for the translation, and to KGS for the tip:

In the heart of darkness. About Strømmen’s writings.
by Øivind Østberg

The Dark Net — About Right-Wing Extremism, Counterjihad and Terror in Europe
by Øyvind Strømmen
Cappelen Damm 2011, 167 pages + notes

When The Dark Net was published in November, reviewers were lining up to applaud it and the doors of the studios were wide open. It’s not often that an unknown documentary journalist has been able to make a name for himself so fast. In this book he gives the commentators exactly what they needed: A platform to explain the terror acts of July 22 as a logical and expected consequence of the tireless activities of a larger political scene. From this book Raymond Johansen of the Labour Party plucked the catchy one-liner he has been using so assiduously in the last few months: Breivik was a lone wolf, but he came from a pack.

Strømmen admits it’s possible that someone is to blame for not having taken real problems (presumably with immigration and Islam) seriously, leaving it all to “the radical right and right-wing extremists”(page 122). A whole sentence is dedicated to this. In the rest of the book there is hardly a reflection over the existence of such problems; that there are indeed underlying societal tendencies and realities giving cause for worry. His description of the new right-wing forces also doesn’t connect them to any social groups or interests. As phenomena they remain completely unexplained other than as collective madness or evil. It is as if one should analyse the growth in extreme movements on the right and left in Europe between the two world wars without mentioning crises and unemployment.

One must of course be careful criticising an author for writing what he chooses as his topic and not something completely different. An empirical mapping-out of certain political movements and environments has obvious worth in itself. But when there is no reference to the social realities behind the described political environments — except when he conveniently distances himself from “demographic panic” and “conspiracy theories — the book becomes not only a documentation of one aspect of reality but a contribution to an ideological production: The idea that mass immigration, demographic changes, increase in crime, the development of parallel societies, Islamic pressure on freedom of speech etc. aren’t real problems in themselves; the problem being evil people exploiting these phenomena for their own nefarious and hate-filled political project. A political project which is the direct cause of the bombing in Oslo and the shots on Utøya.

This perspective is explicitly expressed in the introduction, where the author explains what made him start researching the material for this book. He describes life in the Belgian town of Mechelen, where he has lived. Here there is only joy and happiness with Moroccans, Pakistanis and Turks running their shops and bakeries and speaking the local dialect like natives; an anecdotal picture of a multicultural idyll. Then he discovers that the party Vlaams Belang (VB) enjoys great support in the town. And it is this — rather than the problems with immigration in Belgium which is brushed aside offhand — that really worries him, for this is a party with “fascist roots.” Apart from this there is no mention of what VB stands for. Moreover it is not explained to the reader why this party with, according to Strømmen, its connections to anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism, actually gets 20% of the votes in the multicultural paradise Mechelen.

VB is first and foremost a Flemish nationalistic party, which wants to separate Flanders from Belgium. Strømmen fails to mention this. Perhaps that is because it could lead one’s thoughts in an undesirable direction, seeing that — forget immigration from the Third World — Belgium is one huge illustration of the problems connected with integration of similar-sized groups with different languages and cultural identity in one nation. (We are here talking about parameters like French speakers versus Flemish speakers and Catholics versus Protestants.) It is possible — if he had been interested in digging into this and not just into VB’s connection to neo-Nazis — that Strømmen could have found something that could contribute to an explanation about why skepticism about further cultural disintegration collects votes in Belgium.

In its analysis of the far right in Europe (with some significant omissions) and partly in the USA, the book undoubtedly highlights persons and groups that deserve both to be publicly confronted and monitored by the police. It also mentions a number of extremely unpleasant utterances from the rabid fringe of the Norwegian Internet. It is good and important to shine a torch on such things, as they represent a kind of garbage which a democratic society and a democratic opinion should be able to handle and treat as such, but which doesn’t deserve much serious attention.

But writings in Strømmen’s genre have a political purpose far beyond pointing out the uncomfortable and dangerous aspects of individuals with high levels of aggression and poor powers of expression. It is about exposing the extremists as a means to delegitimise political opponents by tarring any criticism of immigration policies and Islam. His wake-up call is about getting us to realise how terrible it is that such opinions have even been an accepted part of the public space, and that this now has to end.

We see the author’s balancing of objectivity versus rhetoric when he places Ole Jørgen Anfindsen among the untouchables by informing us that he “allowed Fjordman to have a go at a chapter in his own book.” Moreover “he has been at the center when it comes to race theory polemics in extreme Norwegian blogging and debate environments.” Perhaps one should take this as representative of the level of objectivity when it comes to describing movements and persons one doesn’t know from other countries.

The last and conclusive chapter in the book is titled “The banalisation of right wing extremism.” In it, he draws a straight line from a French Front National politician who praised Breivik, to Fremskrittspartiet [The Progress Party]. He generously points out that PP are not neo-Fascists, and also “not a thoroughbred radical right party”, but that they are “the one party on the right in Norwegian politics contributing most to normalise and banalise conspiracy theories and extreme-right thinking. Thus the party has contributed to paving the way for extreme political forces.” This claim is supported with a few examples ranging from Hedstrøm’s Godlia Cinema meeting in 1995 to Tybring-Gjedde and Andersen’s essay in Aftenposten in 2010.

In connection with the former example, Hedstrøm is vilified for suggesting a calculation of the cost of immigration in Parliament, inspired by an activist in obscure far right circles. Strømmen admits that the idea makes sense (after all, it’s not too dissimilar from the mandate of the Brochmann Committee appointed by the Stoltenberg administration), but apparently, coming from such a direction, cannot be considered. The logic behind it seems to be that when one of the untouchables has an idea or an opinion, all decent people must avoid it like the plague, no matter how sensible the opinion might be, because anything else would contribute to “normalise far right thinking.” This is a recipe for political and intellectual inertia.

It is difficult to see the concluding appeal to The Progress Party as anything but an appeal to dismantle, or at least to cut away a considerable part of the political platform with which the party has attracted voters. If they don’t, it would be everybody’s duty to distance themselves from the party. Then all problems will disappear.

Strømmen’s conclusions, and the real as well as the intended effect of his book, far exceed what it covers in the way of content and arguments. He sails with the current, and doesn’t feel any need to do more than scratching the surface of the big debates of immigration and Islam, thereby giving easily-influenced readers the impression that here is a man who not only documents the right in all its horror, but who also takes it apart using facts and arguments.

If he really had wanted to do this, however, he would have had to not only criticise Oriana Fallaci and her Eurabia theory, but also looked at the arguments in Karen Jespersen and Ralf Pittelkow’s book Islam’s power — Europe’s new Reality, published by Jyllands-Posten Publishing House in 2010. The thorough and systematic analysis in this book of the actual developments in Europe over the last few years with special emphasis of the role of Islam hasn’t found favour with any Norwegian publisher, although it is far superior to Strømmen’s in every way. Strømmen has no references to this book. He nonetheless maintains as a basic premise that everything in it is mere nonsense and feverish ravings. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be able to throw himself into a project whose purpose is to block frank discussion about just what Jespersen and Pittelkow describe.

In conclusion I would recommend reading Jespersen and Pittelkow rather than Strømmen.

— Øivind Østberg

In his New Year’s speech, the prime minister of Norway made a thinly-veiled (and antagonistic) reference to Fjordman. Below is Fjordman’s response.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg heads a three-party left-wing coalition government. In his prestigious New Year’s speech that was delivered on national TV over several channels on January 1, 2012, the prime minister said many fine things. He also stated the following:

“The Internet at its worst is when totalitarian seducers are allowed to remain unchallenged in dark corners of the Net. We have to face this with resolve. We shall drive them out with the light of knowledge. Voicing opposition to extremism is taking responsibility for the future.”

He didn’t openly call for censorship as such, but he promoted the term ytringsansvar, which could be translated as “speech responsibility”, or “responsible speech”. Critical observers might reasonably claim that this neologism is frequently used as a code word for Multicultural censorship of anything related to the ongoing mass immigration. The prime minister advocated that people should become more active digital watchdogs and simply say “No, you are wrong” when confronted with extreme opinions.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the proposition that we should confront extremist opinions when we encounter them, but who determines what is to be considered “extreme”? For instance, I maintain that the immigration policies promoted by virtually all Western government today would be considered fairly extreme from a long historical perspective. Is it not an “extreme” outcome when the native population of European countries will, with mathematical certainty, be reduced to a minority in their own countries within a few decades, if present trends continue?

In response to Prime Minister Stoltenberg, who promotes speech responsibility, writer Christian Skaug has introduced the term lytteansvar, that is, a “responsibility to listen”. The Western ruling classes suffer from a listening deficit, especially when it comes to their immigration policies. They don’t properly listen or take into account the wishes of their own people in this regard.

This suppression could potentially lead to serious tensions in the future if left unchecked for much longer. A rising number of Europeans are asking themselves why Western leaders are so busy listening to the “legitimate grievances” of Muslims or other alien peoples, but rarely to the legitimate complaints and concerns of their own people, who increasingly feel like aliens in their own cities.

I understand all too well that some people in the mass media and elsewhere believe that Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s New Year’s speech was a thinly veiled attack on dissident writers who are critical of his government’s immigration policies, with myself prominent among those critics. This idea is not entirely without basis. This speech was in many ways as far as a sitting Prime Minister can go in attacking a specific private citizen without actually naming his name. Party secretary Raymond Johansen of the Labor Party — the prime minister’s party — has attacked me by name several times, however. He has even labeled me a “dangerous extremist”.

I am not sure whether Mr. Stoltenberg truly understands what “totalitarian” means. Was he by any chance referring to some of the radical Islamic organizations his government has shown willingness to cooperate with?

Was he thinking of the fact that his own government in March 2007 became the first in the entire Western world — beating even reliably pro-Islamic Sweden — to accept a government led by the terrorist organization Hamas?

Is he aware of the fact that Hamas in is arguably more totalitarian than the Communists or the Nazis were in Europe?

One also has to point out that except for Islam and Islamic pressures, by far the most powerful and dangerous source of totalitarian impulses on the European continent today is the European Union. The EU has for most practical purposes virtually abolished democratic accountability from the Black Sea to the North Sea, leaving in place an empty shell of parliaments that are nearly devoid of real power to serve as a democratic fig leaf for the autocratic oligarchs.

As I told a journalist from NRK Radio, I am neither totalitarian nor a seducer, and have spent years of my life fighting against Islamic extremism. I am a great supporter of the light of knowledge, and can document all of my claims.

For example, no journalist has ever managed to show that any of the networks my friend Bat Ye’or writes about in her book about Eurabia do not exist. EU authorities themselves state in official documents that are available on the Internet in English and other languages that the EU is to be gradually enlarged to encompass Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. The material also includes the so-called “four freedoms”, among them the free movement of people across borders. This aim is stated quite explicitly in their long-term plans. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is not even a theory. It is a fact.

Moreover, I stand by my claim that Islam cannot be reformed, not if reformation means a form of religion that can accept secular law and live in peace on equal terms with non-Muslims. If “reformation” is taken to imply a return to the early days of the original believers, as Luther and Calvin thought of it during the Protestant Reformation in Europe, then we have arguably already had a “Muslim Martin Luther.” His name was Osama bin Laden. He was a violent Jihadist because violent Jihad was what Mohammed and his followers both preached and practiced.

I will be more than happy to debate such issues with Mr. Stoltenberg. I am not sure if I understand what he refers to when he speaks of the supposed “dark corners of the Internet”. As Fjordman, before my name became publicly known, I used to say that I had a hidden identity, but not a hidden agenda. Anybody with access to a search engine, which means billions of people worldwide, can easily find out what I think about issues from German wheat beers to astrophysics and superstring theory to sharia law. My essays are brightly-lit, and they are spread across the Internet on different websites. They are not hidden away.

If people believe we have dark and dangerous opinions, then they are welcome to challenge these at Gates of Vienna or the other nasty “Islamophobic” websites where I publish on a regular basis.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.