Shooting the Messenger

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

Shooting the Messenger
by Fjordman

On June 26, 2013, the newspaper VG in Norway published a full-length essay by Kjetil Jakobsen, a historian of ideas, who directly compared me to the senior Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler and the exceptionally brutal SS. He declared with certainty that I represent a “modernized Nazism,” nothing more and nothing less than that.

As it happens, on that very same day, the United Kingdom barred entry for two activists engaged in combating the real, Islamic Nazi movement of our age. The high-profile American authors and bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were told by British authorities that they could not gain entry to the UK because their anti-Islamic views are “not conducive to the public good.” These two entirely peaceful anti-sharia advocates had planned to join Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll of the EDL in laying flowers at the site of the soldier Lee Rigby’s public murder and beheading by a Jihadist thug in Woolwich, London, in honor of Armed Forces Day.

What these two seemingly unrelated events have in common is the phenomenon known as “shooting the messenger”; that is, blaming those who bring bad news for creating it in the first place. If you warn against rising tensions and violent threats due to Muslim immigration, fingers are quickly pointed at you for causing these sad developments, especially by those who have done the most to promote policies leading to this result.

On June 25, 2013, Norway’s Minister of Culture Hadia Tajik, whose family is of Pakistani Muslim descent, published an essay in the daily VG. In it, she claimed that she’s in favor of free speech and supports the grant given to me by Fritt Ord, the Freedom of Expression Foundation in Norway, for my upcoming book about the Breivik case, Witness to Madness. That’s nice, of course, although it’s unclear why senior government representatives should have an opinion about how a private organization such as Fritt Ord choose to spend their own money.

Coincidentally, in January 2013 the same Minister of Culture Hadia Tajik from the Labour Party strongly denounced political rivals such as the deputy leader Per Sandberg and others from the Progress Party. They had dared to question the direct support given by all of the country’s taxpayers to the Norwegian Centre against Racism, despite their lack of political balance. The left-wing Minister of Culture considered it “a serious attack on freedom of speech” if organizations with pronounced left-wing sympathies cannot receive public funding.

Apparently, you can only have real “freedom of speech” and be truly “independent” if you are funded directly by the taxpayers for your activities, although for some reason, this rule does not seem to apply to organizations that are critical of mass immigration. They are frequently classified and mapped as “haters” or “extremists” by state-funded organizations. Minister Tajik disingenuously emphasized that the Centre against Racism supposedly represent “innovation,” although they have merely parroted the same message again and again for decades, regardless of how many problems mass immigration has actually caused in real life.

In her VG essay from June 2013, Tajik stated that what she feared the most was not my allegedly horrible viewpoints but her own inability to counter my arguments, which is a remarkable admission. The Minister of Culture spent the rest of the essay harping on what a dangerous and loathsome “extremist” I am.

She used the expression “det gode selskap” about those who agree with her views. This might be translated to English as “polite society,” but it’s stronger than that, and in this case tends to mean simply “those who are good.” I looked for traces of irony in the text but couldn’t find any. Neither did others who read it. Apparently, the Minister of Culture in all seriousness defined those who agree with her views on Multiculturalism, Islam and mass immigration as the “good” people. Does that make those who disagree with her evil?

Minister of Culture Hadia Tajik from the Labour Party emphasized that it’s necessary for the democratic system to defend itself against “attacks” from evil people like me. The newspaper VG published an editorial saying essentially the same thing a few days earlier. That Tajik may disagree with some of my views and voice her opinion on this is just fine with me, but it should be taken into account that she stated this as a sitting Minister representing the largest political party in Parliament, not as a private citizen. Should senior government representatives go after individual citizens with no criminal record to publicly define them as beyond the pale?

In my case, it wasn’t the first time that this had happened, either. For instance, the State Secretary Torgeir Larsen from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, representing Labour in the political leadership and arguably number two in the Ministry after the Minister of Foreign Affairs Espen Barth Eide, in November 2012 wrote an essay for the national daily Dagbladet. He there warned that Europe today is allegedly filled with hatred.

State Secretary Torgeir Larsen argued that anti-Islamic “hate” is increasing in Europe. Symptomatically, he said virtually nothing about limiting the mass immigration that is causing rising tensions, but focused instead on a collaboration to combat irrational hate spread by “Fjordmen.” This strategy entailed using public money to educate 50 bloggers to counter any anti-Islamic “hate” they might encounter on the Internet.

The State Secretary and many others like him seem to be unaware of the third law of motion, published by the young Englishman Isaac Newton in his Principia as far back as in 1687. It states that force equals counterforce and that action equals reaction. This is not politics; it is physics. When people are being displaced from their own lands by other ethnic groups then it is normal human behavior to react to this. If the ruling political elites are worried about rising tensions over mass immigration then they must do what they can to halt the mass immigration that is causing this. Deal with the fundamental problem; don’t just complain about the symptoms.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then led by members of the Labour Party, in the spring of 2013 decided to use taxpayers’ money to support the activists Øyvind Strømmen and Kjetil Stormark in combating so-called “hate speech” by anti-Islamists and others. Stormark himself referred only half-jokingly to this new organization as a “guerrilla movement,” a term which seems to indicate that he thinks he’s engaged in a war of sorts.

Just a few months earlier, Kjetil Stormark had published an entire book with Breivik’s private emails prior to July 2011 to many unsuspecting individuals who had themselves done nothing criminal. This material had been obtained by hackers using illegal methods and passed on to the journalist Stormark. While Stormark himself may not have done anything illegal in this case, this is still questionable ethical behavior. It is unwise for the government to use public money on direct sponsorship of such a person’s activities.

Anniken Huitfeldt of the Labour Party stated as Minister of Culture in October 2011 that her government would be uncompromising in their defense of a Multicultural Norway. Her Muslim successor as Minister, Hadia Tajik, claimed in June 2013 that I write about “the need for civil war.” That’s a very serious accusation for which this high-profile representative of the government provided no evidence — because none exists. That unfortunately hasn’t stopped a number of people from claiming that I “encourage” or “support” civil war, however.

In the regional daily Bergens Tidende, the notoriously dishonest Rune Berglund Steen from the state-sponsored Norwegian Centre against Racism in July 2013 falsely claimed that I “desire civil war,” an utterly absurd suggestion. Who in their right mind would desire a civil war, which is often the worst type of conflict imaginable? The preferred tactic of some left-wing activists for dealing with ideological opponents seems to be to derail the debate by smearing specific individuals with personal attacks while disregarding their arguments and ignoring actual reality.

Obviously, neither Hadia Tajik nor Rune Berglund Steen provided any quote to prove their extremely serious accusation that I write about “the need for” or actively “desire” civil war. Precisely for that reason, the editors of the newspapers VG and Bergens Tidende should not have allowed such accusations to be published.

It is true, however, that I have written essays were I mentioned the possibility of future ethnic conflicts or even civil wars if present mass immigration to the Western world continues, but always to warn against such a scenario. Apparently, warning against a possible negative outcome is now the same as “recommending” or “desiring” such an outcome. This indicates a complete breakdown of logic or honesty, or possibly both.

As it happens, I’m far from the first or only person to have raised this possibility. Another is the Oxford-educated British economic historian Niall Ferguson — originally from Glasgow, Scotland, but currently a Professor of History at Harvard University in the USA. He’s also married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch politician and courageous ex-Muslim writer of Somali origins who became an American citizen in 2013.

Ferguson visited Oslo in the summer of 2013 and there lectured at the respectable Norwegian Nobel Institute. He believes that traditional Western European welfare states cannot survive the ongoing migration and globalization. He also warned against the possibility of “warfare” between immigrants and natives in European cities within a few years, especially if the economic situation continues to deteriorate. Others who do not have his academic credentials tend to be dismissed as dangerous “extremists” for mentioning this same possibility.

I agree with Niall Ferguson one some issues and disagree with him on others, for instance his indication that the EU should be turned into a full federation. The EU is becoming increasingly totalitarian and should in my opinion be abolished in its present form, something which I’ve advocated for years. Ferguson further tends to indicate that mass immigration should continue as before, but simply be handled better. Yet mass immigration as it exists today is too dangerous to continue, and could cause very dangerous ethnic tensions if it isn’t stopped.

Dr. Daniel Pipes, a noted American author and academic, in the spring of 2007 published the essay “Europe’s Stark Options.” He there warned about future ethnic clashes where native Europeans may either expel recent intruders and colonizers or submit to gradually becoming a demographic and cultural extension of the Middle East and Africa. He commented on the ongoing cultural and demographic implosion of a continent that has driven so much of world history and innovation. Pipes predicated that the decisive events which will resolve this question will take place within the coming generation, but since Europe’s current situation is virtually unique in recorded history, the exact outcome is hard to predict:

Correctly anticipating that course is the more difficult for being historically unprecedented. No large territory has ever shifted from one civilization to another by virtue of a collapsed population, faith, and identity; nor has a people risen on so grand a scale to reclaim its patrimony. The novelty and magnitude of Europe’s predicament make it difficult to understand, tempting to overlook, and nearly impossible to predict. Europe marches us all into terra incognita.

It is important to emphasize that such a warning against the possibility of future conflicts or even civil warns is not in any way the same as encouraging it. Some commentators seem to have forgotten that crucial distinction.

The mass media in Sweden are among the most censored in the entire Western world when it comes to everything related to immigration, but on rare occasions a few critical articles manage to slip through the cracks even there. Aftonbladet is by circulation one of the largest newspapers in the Nordic countries, alongside fellow Swedish dailies Dagens Nyheter and Expressen, but after the Helsingin Sanomat in Finland.

On June 30 2008, writer Anders Lugn somehow managed to have an essay published in Aftonbladet entitled “Sveriges väg mot katastrof,” or “Sweden’s road towards disaster.” In the 1980s he worked as a UN officer in Lebanon, a beautiful country (I have myself visited it) that was ravaged by internal tensions and a civil war.

Lugn listed a number of factors contributing to this disaster, including a weak national culture, weak national armed forces, weak police forces, easy access to guns (legal or illegal), easy access to alcohol and narcotic drugs, and last but not least, a widespread feeling of hopelessness, impotence and indifference in the general population, a sense that nothing you do through established political channels will make any real difference. Anders Lugn noted with fear that a number of these same factors are now at work in his native Sweden. Less than five years later, huge riots erupted in immigrant-dominated suburbs in Stockholm and other Swedish cities.

In Norway, a police report in 2013 warned against the growth of dangerous “parallel societies” in Oslo and other cities in the coming decade, with urban areas operating outside of real state control and according to their own rules and laws. Similar areas already exist in parts of France, Britain, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and several other Western countries. Oslo has one of the highest rates of population growth in Europe today, thanks in large measure to mass immigration, much of it from Third World countries. The police report warned that tensions elsewhere in the world could quickly escalate locally and affect our society. For instance, Norway has already witnessed clashes between Kurdish Muslims and Chechen Muslims, on Norwegian soil.

The irony is that native groups that warn against rising ethnic tensions due to mass immigration risk being classified as “right-wing extremists” who must be watched by the police authorities. Apparently the only ones who are allowed to point this trend out are the police themselves, some journalists and left-wing groups.

In early July 2013, the newspaper Aftenposten published an alarming description of youth crime as it is in parts of Oslo already now. The threshold for threatening violence and robbing other children has become very low for a significant number of immigrant boys aged 15-18 years, who practically brag about it if they are arrested by the police. Hana Barakzahi (17) and Burhan Ahmed (15), themselves of immigrant background, confirmed the trend based on personal experiences. “Children are terrified of going to school or attending events, after several of them have been robbed by gangs of boys. What can we do when they do not even have respect for the police?”

Aftenposten should be commended for publishing this article at all, but the established mass media generally underreport such incidents. Even the tip of the iceberg that they do publish is deeply disturbing. The “crime” committed by people like me is that we ask what will happened 20-40 years from now, if we have these huge problems already today and mass immigration continues. If Aftenposten and others were truly concerned about these trends then they would advocate a much more restrictive immigration policy. But they don’t.

Mass immigration on the enormous scale which we are witnessing today would be highly likely to cause dangerous tensions even in the absence of Islamic culture, although Islam adds a dangerous extra dimension to this explosive mix. As European history demonstrates, you do not necessarily need Islam to create violent tensions; it just helps a lot. As experience from the USA indicates, there can also be tensions between blacks and whites, as well as problems caused by Mexican immigration.

All in all, these accumulated experiences indicate precisely what I have advocated for years, namely severely limiting all immigration, including non-Muslim immigration, and permanently ending Muslim immigration. If somebody considers me an “extremist” for saying this, so be it. I am merely trying to ensure the survival of my nation while limiting the damage for all parties involved as much as possible.

You can be a left-wing writer and raise the possibility of future ethnic clashes without being stigmatized for it. One such case in Norway is the author Gert Nygårdshaug. He was listed among the top three candidates for the Communist Red Party in his municipality in 2007 and 2011 and has long followed Marxist ideas. He has even voiced public understanding for brutal terrorist attacks that claimed the lives of many people. Yet while controversial, that is not enough make him an “extremist” beyond the confines of polite society.

Just a week after the Islamic Jihadist terror attacks of September 11th 2001, which killed thousands of unarmed civilians, Gert Nygårdshaug published an essay in a major Norwegian newspaper claiming that he found it “sickening” to have three minutes of silence to honor the American victims. He went quite far in agreeing with the terror leader Osama bin Laden and his “razor sharp political ideology,” suggesting that the attacks happened because of American aggression, oppression and exploitation of poor people and that the legitimate terror attacks of desperate people would continue until these alleged “root causes” of terrorism were addressed.

As it happens, most of the Muslim hijackers and Jihadist terrorists in 2001 came from Saudi Arabia, a country that has contributed virtually nothing to the advancement of human knowledge throughout its entire history but has nevertheless become extremely wealthy thanks to a simple geological accident — oil discovered, extracted and paid for by Westerners and other non-Muslims. Norway won that geological lottery, too, but at the very least Norwegians developed the technology to extract their own oil. Arabs usually don’t even do that.

As late as in July 2011, the same month as Breivik’s terror attacks and mass murder, Gert Nygårdshaug publicly admitted that he had put up a sign in his private garden which critics argued could be seen as voicing support of the mass murder of the 9/11 terror attacks and the mass murder of about three thousand human beings in 2001. The sign read: “11. september broen. Til minne om dagen da USA endelig fikk seg en smekk!” — “The 11th of September bridge. In memory of the day when the United States finally got a slap [in the face]!”

The Muslim terrorists of 9/11 killed thousands of people because they were Islamic supremacists who saw the West as obstacles to the global agenda of their own aggressive Arab-Islamic imperialism. This is one of the most brutal imperialist traditions in human history, according to the Nobel Prize-winning author V. S. Naipaul. Yet Mr. Nygårdshaug, like so many Marxists, lambasts Western “imperialism” but seems to cheer for Muslim imperialism because he passionately hates Western civilization and the European nations who created it.

A decade later, Gert Nygårdshaug did not regret his comments from September 2001 but claimed that all terror “has its reasons” and that one must remove the root causes of terrorism in order to get rid of terror. Coincidentally, he then said little about the terror attacks in his native Norway carried out by Anders Behring Breivik just weeks earlier. Following Nygårdshaug’s logic that terrorism is a response to root causes such as occupation and expansionist aggression, which occupation and expansionist aggression did Breivik respond to?

On June 29, 2012, Gert Nygårdshaug had a full-length essay published in the newspaper Aftenposten. He there voiced concerns that European societies could “collapse” in the coming decades and that Europe could indeed be headed for serious ethnic and political conflicts in the not-too-distant future. The tensions we are already seeing now are only the beginning, according to him.

Predictably though, Nygårdshaug said virtually nothing about limiting immigration to avoid or limit this potential problem. Ranting about white neo-Nazis and Fascists, which he claims Breivik is, he didn’t say a single word about “root causes” or whether Europeans might have legitimate grievances of their own, just as non-Europeans are allowed to have. He also claimed that this subject hasn’t been talked about, which is not true.

One of the reasons why people write political blogs is to debate issues the mainstream media are reluctant to touch. Quite a few blogs and independent websites have for years been debating the issue of future conflicts due to mass immigration, including some of the websites I write for. I’ve also been ruthlessly criticized for this.

Mr. Nygårdshaug mentioned the possibility that evil European nationalists could trigger a “Ragnarok” in a few years and was hailed by several readers for his “bravery” in mentioning this. What bravery is that? People like him have been breaking down society for generations, and when the collapse seems imminent, they blame their opponents and take no responsibility or self-criticism whatsoever. Indeed, he barely mentioned mass immigration as a factor at all, concentrating his fire on nationalists and others who oppose these policies.

The root cause of the rising tensions we are witnessing today is a grandiose social experiment in the Western world that in its own way is every bit as big and dangerous as that of Communist societies some decades ago. Perhaps those who best recognize similarities in social engineering are people who grew up under Communism.

The Russian intellectual, writer and scientist Vladimir Bukovsky in the 1960s and 1970s spent years in Soviet prisons and exposed the political use of psychiatric imprisonment against dissident in the Soviet Union. The Flemish writer Paul Belien in 2006 interviewed him for the magazine The Brussels Journal. Belien is the author of A Throne in Brussels and argues that the artificial state Belgium has served as an inspiration for the EU.

In a speech Vladimir Bukovksy called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed as soon as possible, before it develops into a full-fledged totalitarian state. Just like the Soviet Union before it, the European Union tries to create a New Man, freed of his burdensome past and stripped of his cultural heritage. When in the end this artificial entity invariably collapses under the weight of its own Utopian ideas, suppressed feelings of national identity may suddenly come bouncing back with a vengeance. “You can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot,” Bukovksy warns.

He fears that such a future collapse of the EU and the huge ongoing Multicultural social experiment in the West may be turbulent, especially if it’s combined with a major economic crisis on top of everything else. “It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles.”

According to the logic of people such as Hadia Tajik and Rune Berglund Steen, Vladimir Bukovksy is a right-wing extremist who “desires civil war” since he issues such a warning. The rest of us may choose who we believe the most: Ideological activists who promote huge social experiments of millions of people today, or the practical experiences of a brave man who has previously suffered under a huge social experiment on millions of people that collapsed after causing much needless human suffering.

DONATE TO FJORDMAN:

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

17 thoughts on “Shooting the Messenger

  1. It is kind of funny to hear the anti-Israel politicians of a largely Judenrein Europe accuse someone of resembling Heinrich Himmler.

  2. The term “those who are good” appears to be close to the UK politically correct term “most decent people” in its connotations, most decent people in good society would not think X, consequently stating X outlaws an individual.

  3. “police society” appears twice, where I expect that polite society was the intended wording.

  4. I quote from: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/meninger/artikkel.php?artid=10111205

    “Peder Jensen Nøstvold stands for a humanity that is contrary to the values ​​our civilization rests, namely the simple and fundamental principle that every human being is of equal worth. Everyone has the right to be judged by who they are and what they stand for, not from where they come from or what groups they belong to.”
    What do those suicide bombers stand for in Pakistan? What do suicide killers stand for in Egypt or Iraq, or Syria, or Yemen, or Londonistan, or Paristan, or Bostonstan . . . etc.
    Can the simpletons who run the Scandinavian countries be equal to Muslims with strong tenets of Islam from Pakistan, Lebanon and Egypt, who have been invited to reside in those countries be equal? a strongly naive politician = an islamist with strong Muslim Theology. Are they equal?
    Can Fjorman, who is honest, tells the truth early to avoid civil war, to avoid bloodshed in the future Europe, to enlighten Europe which has entered the darkest age since 1970. Can this man be equal to any Scandinavian politician, who deceive their own people. Europe is small and crowded that’s why it has suffered so many wars over the last 800 years. Muslim procreation of population is unlimited. Can the “foreigners-kind” Europe invite unlimited number of immigrants for, say, 200 years? , that’s unkind for their own indigenous population.
    It seems that the Europe and Scandinavia have advanced in civilization that they have become so duncical that they need aliens to come and run their poor, old countries. What a sad situation!

    • ALLAS LIKA VÄRDE

      “Peder Jensen Nøstvold stands for a humanity that is contrary to the values our civilization rests, namely the simple and fundamental principle that…
      …every human being is of equal worth..”
      original: …at hvert menneske er like mye verdt..
      and then comes the antithesis:
      “Everyone has the right to be judged by who they are and what they stand for, not from where they come from or what groups they belong to.”
      Does the same and equal “value” remain after this assessment?

      Functional (not IQ-dependent/related but -acquired/indoctrinated) stupidity and even idiocy is spreading like a modern black plague. (Topic of the Baron’s next grand post?).
      The claim of ‘everybody’s equal worth or value’ originates from true stupid Sweden, where it is the mantra of all good PC-people: ALLAS LIKA VÄRDE (everybody’s equal value/worth).
      This false statement originates in a mistranslation of the words born free and equal in dignity and rights in the UN Declaration of Human rights, where in the Swedish version dignity is translated with värde (=worth/value) instead of värdighet (=dignity).
      All Swedish citizens through government auspices have been deprived of their dignity and instead assigned a value that is claimed to be the same for all! See also the Swedish Constitution (Grundlag) and the law of Jante (Jantelagen).

  5. Fjordman has exposed the lie of multiculturalism, and naturally the liars will go to any length to keep from being exposed.

  6. “…what she feared the most was not my allegedly horrible viewpoints but her own inability to counter my arguments, which is a remarkable admission.”

    Like the imam who whined that his debate with Spencer was unfair, because he didn’t, uh, have any good answers.

    Look around you, no matter where you are; we are well in the gateway into an new age of anti-reasoning.

    And regarding the blocking of the meeting of American and English Jihad-skeptics: the main reason for this is to keep any international, trans-border traditional foundations from being. They are keeping us isolated.

    I’m glad you are multiplying into “Fjordmen” now. Dympha wrote well on your mythical mutiplicity. Personally, I’m keeping my eye on the the dubious “Yogurt Fjordman”.

  7. Pingback: Shooting the Messenger « Snaphanen

  8. I wish I had this kind of clarity of thought. Fjordman says it as it is and these
    political pygmies in Norway have NO counter-argument. A lot of essayists and
    posters imagine a not too distant time when a civil war scenario would come to pass in many European countries. I’d have to disagree with this and state
    that civil war is a MOST unlikely outcome anywhere in Europe, with the
    possible exception of Greece. The machinery of state oppression is becoming
    stronger and more widespread by the day in all of these countries. The use of reason or even recourse to the law of the land are becoming redundant. Even
    the Judiciary are contaminated with repression. The Police Forces are readily
    switching from protecting the populace to persecuting the populace. And in
    their mostly tiny minds they justify this persecution. When societies have reached this stage of over-contamination those societies will die. It will not be a question of an organised and physical resistance or even warfare between
    natives and immigrants. The sick governments we are stuck with are our only
    enemies.

    • There are 700 No Go Zones in France where the government cant exert it’s sole dominion of force on the streets.

      When the indigenous populations no longer recognize the authority of the state, the state will crumble.

  9. Please Fjordman!

    Isn’t it a little outdated AND stringy to harp on about “the Islamic Jihadist terror attacks of September 11th 2001”?
    – We all by now know that this was arranged by completely different “forces”? – ‘The homemade 2nd Pearl Harbor.’

  10. In the dignity of their humanity, all people are the same.
    In the quality of their cultures and ethics, groups of people and certain people can differ so mightily as to want to kill one another.
    When Europeans and Scandinavians imported the Muslims into their countries, if they had any sense of history, then they would realize that they were importing nothing less than an invading and occupying force. Euro colonialism did nothing to dampen the objectives of Islam.
    The dignity of humanity is not in dispute here.
    The content of culture, the dangers of cultural genocide, and cultural conflict are what is being discussed, and multiculturalists and the anti-racists have nothing to say here.
    They all believe that history began in 1649.

  11. As one who has lived in Germany and Italy and is a student of the Third Reich, there is so much similarilty I see between the German occupation of Europe in WW 2 with the occupation that exists today. Norway, today still has its versions of Vidkun Quisling. Here is America, we see events in Europe as a warning of what is a few years down the road for us.

  12. Dear Baron,

    I would like to donate to Fjordman, but the button leads me to a Norwegian Paypal thingy that I can not make sense of.

    I have more respect for him than I can possibly express.

    Robert.

  13. Our challenge is to overcome the charge that we are the racists and haters. It is the Islamists who are and their lies and own hate and violence must be exposed. If one wants to open one’s eyes, it is in plain view on the streets of Europe and the flames of the Middle East, Pakistan and other places.

    It is we who are the human rights activists. It is we who are standing up for the rights of all religious minorities, women and gays. Thus, we must frame the argument ourselves. The Quislings who are welcoming this force into Europe in the name of multi-culturalism are no better than the ones who collaborated with Nazi occupation.

    The good news is that every day, more and more people learn the truth about Islam. That number can only rise and will not be reversed. We simply need to keep educating the public about the true hateful nature of the beast.

Comments are closed.