Fjordman: Top Norwegian Prof: Critics of Mass Immigration Mentally Ill


Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at FrontPage Mag. Some excerpts are below:

Per Fugelli is a physician, originally from Stavanger in western Norway, who has for years been a Professor of Social Medicine at the University of Oslo. He also enjoys a high media profile. Fritt Ord, Norway’s most important and well-funded free speech organization, decided to give the Freedom of Expression Prize for 2013, their highest distinction, to Fugelli “for having given a voice to cancer patients.” He has been open about his struggle against this horrible disease and made a positive contribution in that regard, but in many other cases he’s been more preoccupied with harassing, threatening or bullying others who dare to use their freedom of speech.

Another person who has previously won the same award is William Nygaard, the Norwegian publisher of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses, who on the morning of 11 October 1993 was shot three times and nearly killed outside of his own home in Oslo. The percentage of Muslims in Norway at that point probably did not much exceed 1%. It was even less in Japan, where the translator of the same novel was murdered. Merely one percent or less of Islamic culture can thus be enough to get people killed for criticizing Islam. This should serve as a reminder of just how toxic Islam truly can be to any free society.


In the spring of 2013, the journalists Kjell Erik Eilertsen and Ole Asbjørn Ness from the medium-sized business paper Finansavisen, owned by businessman Trygve Hegnar, interviewed young people of ethnic Norwegian background about how it’s really like for them to grow up in the Grorud Valley in inner-city Oslo. They told a tale of constant, daily humiliations and abuse, until many native families simply move away from the area.

The article met with a storm of reactions on two of the major dissident websites in Norway and was translated to English at the website Gates of Vienna, which the weekly newspaper Morgenbladet has charmingly defined as the “Gates of Hell.” Yet the story largely met with silence from bigger media outlets. The state broadcaster NRK was at the same time busy inventing a positive and charming Multicultural version of this area.

My initial thought when reading about this was the deafening silence of “nice” people like Per Fugelli, or Gutmenschen as the Germans call them. What is their reaction to this? Virtually nothing; they just turn their backs to these problems caused by their own policies and pretend they don’t exist. I am sure these abused young natives, who tell horrifying tales of being robbed, beaten up or called “white infidel whore” on a regular basis in what once was their country, would have been delighted to receive some backing from a self-appointed brave “humanitarian” such as Mr. Fugelli. Sadly, they received none.

Perhaps if they asked him, Professor Fugelli would explain to them that the assaults and abuse they experience are all imaginary and can be cured with some anti-psychotic drugs. And if that didn’t work, maybe he would smear them with “Nazi” accusations or threaten to beat them up. Per Fugelli represents the dark and hypocritical face of humanitarian Norway.

Read the rest at FrontPage Mag.

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

7 thoughts on “Fjordman: Top Norwegian Prof: Critics of Mass Immigration Mentally Ill

  1. Quistling Lefty Prof: “You patriotic critics of mass Muslim immigration are mentally ill”.

    Conservative Western patriot, who may very well also be a Christian: “I know you are, but what am I?” A schoolyard taunt, but one which fits perfectly in this case, because Muslims will eventually turn on their foolish leftist appeasers-enablers.

  2. The lefty professor is ill…he is projecting his own illness onto others.

    Gadzooks… did he not read or study Freud or Jung?? Or ever watch a Donald Duck cartoon.

  3. A while back I exchanged emails with my local political representative. He’d been quoted as saying something to the effect that immigration had been of benefit to western nations and I wrote asking him for information on the cost-benefit analysis he’d employed in reaching his conclusion.

    He wrote back; “taking everything into consideration, immigration has been beneficial”.

    I wrote back saying that since he’d taken everything into consideration it would be interesting to know what costs he’d attached to immigration, what currency he’d employed in calculating them, and how they compared to its benefits. I asked if he’d be so good as to enlighten me.

    He replied; “no one can dispute the fact that immigration has been of economic benefit to Western nations.”

    I replied that that may be so, though I have seen no evidence to suggest it, but it’s not quite the same as saying ‘everything considered immigration has been beneficial’. That aside, I said that even if he was now restricting his argument to the economic aspects of immigration, a cost benefit analysis is still a prerequisite of an accurate conclusion. I asked what his costings were and how he costed and incorporated into his calculation such intangibles as the social impact of immigration on the host.

    He replied, “I am clearly not going to persuade you to change your point of view. I think we should agree to disagree. No one can seriously deny the economic benefits of immigration…”

    That passes for argument in these parts! The interesting thing for me is that, and it’s as clear as day, the guy had no faith in his own argument. If he really believed in what he was saying he’d have furnished me with a cost benefit analysis supporting his position and undermining my own. That’s the kind of thing politicians are supposed to isn’t it?

    But from this man, nothing.

    There are lots of people saying it but I wonder how many truly believe? Fewer by the day I’d say. The system has had its foundations washed away – it’s got to fall soon.

    • Correction:

      “That’s the kind of thing politicians are supposed to isn’t it?” should of course read, “That’s the kind of thing politicians are supposed to do isn’t it?”

  4. Communist regimes used to “diagnose” dissenters as “mentally ill” and lock them up.

    Ignoring the problems caused by their social engineering is also another tradition of the ideologues of the loony left, after all, most of them don’t live anywhere near the front line.

  5. Pingback: Steynian 467nd | Free Canuckistan!

Comments are closed.