Will Anyone Stop Fjordman?

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

Apropos of the essay below, Fjordman was recently awarded the Anti-Nobel Prize by Vlad Tepes.

Nobody stopped Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Will somebody stop Fjordman today?

On June 14, 2013, it was announced that the well-funded free speech organization Fritt Ord would give a grant to support my upcoming and still unfinished book about the Breivik case, Witness to Madness. This triggered an explosive debate in Norway which continued not just for weeks but for months afterwards, even reaching the government level.

My most positive impression came from those individuals who probably genuinely disagree with and dislike my viewpoint, but who nevertheless supported the decision and freedom of speech as a matter of principle. There are fortunately still quite a few of those left in Norway, Scandinavia and the wider Western world, which is encouraging.

They included the veteran publisher William Nygaard and the Professor of the History of Ideas Trond Berg Eriksen. The columnist Shabana Rehman Gaarder supported Fritt Ord’s decision. So did the activist Sara Azmeh Rasmussen, although she suggested that I am a “troll.”

There was no shortage of people who failed this test, though. The author Anne Holt was furious, while the author and journalist Vidar Kvalshaug described my writings as “muck” and wrote Twitter messages about my supposed “personal responsibility” for the terror attacks.

One of the nastiest reactions came from Snorre Valen, an MP from the Socialist Left Party (SV). He wrote an essay for the public broadcaster NRK, stating that the “Fascist” Peder Jensen will “write a book about the terrorism that he himself inspired.” He further wrote that “Fritt Ord’s support to Fjordman is an insult to all those who were killed and injured. It is an insult to all the relatives and to all those who lost somebody on July 22, 2011.”

I employ my freedom of speech to say controversial things. As such, it’s only fair that my level of tolerance for what others throw back at me should be high. It is of course ridiculous that I’m being referred to as a Fascist, but I will reluctantly accept this as being within the boundaries of our libel laws. I also accept being compared to Darth Vader, Lex Luthor or Sauron, but I prefer not to be compared to Gollum because he’s got such bad teeth.

Yet there are limits. There is little doubt that Mr. Valen, who wrote this essay as an MP for the ruling party SV, believes that I share some culpability for terror attacks and the mass murder, an accusation which is not only obscene but borders on the libelous. I have been a staunch anti-terrorist for years. The same can unfortunately not be said about Valen’s own political party, which has for years expressed sympathies for Palestinian Jihadist terrorists.

The dissident writer Hans Rustad commented that the mass media have made me into a form of abominable snowman or all-purpose bogeyman. Rustad believes that the rhetoric employed by Valen, among others, in the country’s largest media outlet was akin to branding somebody an outlaw, which in previous ages put them beyond the boundaries of normal legal protection.

Rustad’s claim is probably exaggerated, but it is troubling that a Member of Parliament representing the ruling elites decides to attack a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record. It’s a sign of an unhealthy social climate.

Valen ignored the fact that Breivik himself stated during the trial that he wanted to initiate a “witch-hunt” on non-violent activists on the political Right. That Valen and other members of the media and the political elites are actively helping to fulfill the mass murder’s expressed wishes by vilifying critics of mass immigration doesn’t seem to bother them much.

Valen further claimed that my texts do not have any empirical support. That’s a remarkable claim, given that riots that I’ve been warning against for years had occurred in Swedish immigrant ghettos only weeks earlier, in May 2013.

His own party SV claims to be preoccupied with the safety of women and children. If that is the case, shouldn’t they be more concerned by the fact that many women now feel that it is unsafe to walk the streets in several Norwegian cities, and that Norwegian children are regularly harassed by immigrant gangs in their own country? There is a lot of talk about white “right-wing extremists,” but isn’t it extreme to engage in a policy of wide open borders and thus displace the native population of an entire continent, namely Europe?

Snorre Valen blasted non-violent anti-Islamists, but at the same time supported his own government’s decision to engage in “dialogue” with the Taliban. The Taliban is one of the world’s most violent and brutal Islamic movements that regularly carries out political murders and terror attacks and that kills Norwegian and other NATO soldiers.

When Snorre Valen stated these things and tied me intimately to Breivik’s mass murder, he was a high-profile Member of Parliament, acting as a deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. He was also a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Left Party (SV), which at that time formed a part of the ruling coalition government of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and had been in power for nearly a decade.

Many left-wing activists love to see themselves as brave dissidents, “speaking the truth to power.” Yet this man represented power, and he used it to attack a peaceful writer whose political views he dislikes, defining him as beyond the pale. Coincidentally, his party was struggling in the opinion polls just before the national parliamentary elections in 2013.

Snorre Valen thus needed publicity for himself and his party to retain his lucrative personal position as a Member of Parliament. The same man has used his status as MP to nominate Wikileaks and the leakers Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize.

By August 1, 2013, the chairman of Norway’s Nobel Prize committee “attacked the Norwegian press for allowing the extremist blogger Peder ‘Fjordman’ Jensen to air his anti-Islamic views.” Thorbjørn Jagland, a former Prime Minister and now the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, warned against letting the ideology allegedly held by the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik to enter the mainstream:

“If you read what Fjordman has published online, you can easily see that he is coming from the same mindset. The only difference is that while Fjordman writes, Breivik acted. But there is not much difference between giving Fjordman the support to publish his opinions and giving the killer himself a public microphone.”

One has to wonder what planet Mr. Jagland is on. As Per Edgar Kokkvold, the respected Secretary General of the Norwegian Press Association, said, the debate regarding the grant to my upcoming book had been going on in the Norwegian press throughout the summer of 2013, with many participants both for and against it.

In an essay in the daily Dagsavisen, Thorbjørn Jagland expressed concern that if people like me were able to express their views, murderers might be next. “Someone has to say stop before we find ourselves on a slippery slope where Fjordman’s voice becomes more and more normal,” he wrote, praising Hans Fredrik Dahl, a historian of Norway’s Nazi occupation, for doing this.

A few days earlier, the debate editor at Dagsavisen, the Socialist writer Stian Bromark, published an essay claiming that the four major right-wing extremists Norway has produced are Anders Behring Breivik, Varg Vikernes, Vidkun Quisling and myself. He worried that this might be bad for business and for Norway’s image abroad as a “peace nation.”

The other three mentioned by Bromark are all convicted criminals, the first two being murderers. At the time of writing, I have no criminal record whatsoever. Yet that apparently matters little to this left-wing newspaper. Unsurprisingly, Stian Bromark has for years mocked individuals warning against rising Islamic infiltration of Europe.

The essay by Professor Emeritus Hans Fredrik Dahl that was praised by Thorbjørn Jagland was published in national newspaper Dagbladet in connection with the two-year anniversary for Breivik’s deadly attacks. Professor Dahl is a noted newspaper columnist in addition to being a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.

In his July 2013 column, Dahl directly compared me to Adolf Hitler and indicated that just as Hitler and the Nazis should have been stopped in the 1930s, people like me need to be stopped today, before things escalate and go out of control.

Hans Fredrik Dahl has worked as a professional historian for decades and should know a thing or two about the difference between primary sources and secondary sources. Yet he compared me to the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler seemingly without having read much of my writings. That’s remarkably sloppy and dishonest behavior by an esteemed professor and alleged researcher. He apparently based his judgment mainly on highly negative presentations of my supposedly “bizarre” writings and viewpoints made by others.

One could further point out that even if I had been just as evil as Adolf Hitler, unlike him I’m not the top political leader of a major industrial and military power or the head of a big war machine. I merely write essays. Coincidentally, Professor Hans Fredrik Dahl himself in the late 1990s defended the British writer David Irving, who had previously gone quite far in claiming that the Nazi genocide of Jews and others never happened or has been exaggerated.

Nobody stopped Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Will somebody stop Fjordman today?


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

26 thoughts on “Will Anyone Stop Fjordman?

  1. It seems that anyone who contradicts the ideology of the left is automatically deemed a fascist. Considering the left has vilified Christianity, maybe fascism is not such a bad idea.

  2. Will somebody stop Fjordman today ?

    I think thats a dangerous question !

    Did Mr Pim Fortuyn ever think that he would be executed by the left treehugger Volkert van der Graaf , I guess not.

    Did Theo van Gogh after his movie Submission ever think he would be slaughtered by Mohammed Bouyeri on a street in Amsterdam and left with 2 knives in his chest with an attached note containing a death threat to Hirshi Ali ?

    I guess not , both vented critics on Islam , both paid the ultimate price.

    Yet Fjordman vents something more dangerous in my opnion , he shows the true face of Islam , he also shows the extreme docile “away with us” attitude of the Norwegian government and citizens.

    As a Dutch citizen living in Norway I compare the situation here with the fairy tail of the 3 little pigs and the big bad wolf.

    The difference is that the little piggies invited the wolf among their straw huts and they have no idea what happens when that wolf gets hungry.

    Resume , be careful Fjordman be very careful.

  3. Those in Norway who write against Fjordman must know that they have imported both a civil war and the end of their own culture. They are blaming someone else for the pathetic decision making of the powerful, that is themselves.

    • So much incompetence in ruling the people of Europe, and then scapegoating innocent individuals for their own fecklessness. They imported Muslims and they misbehaved. Ok the natural common sense is to stop importing them. But the elites can’t stop importing them. How could “educated” rulers become so nonsensical is beyond belief. And now they try to gloss over their gross decisions by claiming that all sciences were developed by Muslims. No tell me is not Lucifer working in their minds?

      • > But the elites can’t stop importing them.

        They cant stop importing them because now so many of them are already there, that you cannot make any decisions regarding them independently any more, now you have to “explain” to them why you want to stop the importing of their peers.

        > No tell me is not Lucifer working in their minds?

        No. You dont need Lucifer to explain simple cowardice.

        Also, pride. They have immersed themselves so much into the “human rights uber alles” ideology, that theyd rather disappear than admit that they were wrong. It is like religious people go through all kinds of mental hoops, fallacies and inconsistencies rather than admit that their beliefs are nonsense.

    • Yes, but that is what some of them want.

      I was speaking to a UK Labour Party advisor, and I said his policy would end the UK as a nation, and his children would suffer. His reply was: “ok, if that is what it takes to destroy the nation.”

      Why? He was a one-worlder, looking for a one-world government. And the only way you can get such an entity, is if you destroy individual nations. Which is what he was trying to do.

      What he could not understand, is how dangerous a one-world government could be. He was thinking of a supranational government run by polite liberal. But what if Pol Pot got control of this supranational government, or Stalin, or Mao, or Osama, or Armadinnerjacket? What then eh?

      This is the trouble with liberal-fantasy politicians, they have no idea what they are unleashing onto an unsuspecting world.

  4. If leftism ties with equality, and rightwing extremism is acting not in accordance with this I still would mention Tjordenskjold and Holberg as norwegian examples of rightwing extremism.
    One of the myths about Tordenskiold has entered into the Danish and Norwegian languages. During the negotiations for Marstrand’s surrender in 1719, it is told he had his men move from block to block as he was walking the Marstrand commander through his positions, thus convincing the commander that his strength was much greater than it actually was. This gave birth to the idiom “Tordenskjold’s soldiers” (Danish: Tordenskjolds soldater),[2] denoting the same group of people (feeling compelled to) repeatedly taking charge and fill multiple roles.
    With two frigates and five smaller ships, he conquered or destroyed around 30 Swedish ships,[2] with little damage to himself during the Battle of Dynekilen on July 8, 1716.[3]
    The agreement with the king included that Holberg would be free of taxes from any income from the farms he owned, because the amount donated to the school should be larger than the amount he would pay in taxes.

  5. History prof Dahl should educate himself by reading, “Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam”, 2008, by Dalen and Rothmann. It’s a bio of Haj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974), Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, hateful anti-Semite, and recruiter of Bosnian-Muslims for a unit of the “Hanjar (Saber) Division” of the Waffen SS.

    This Mufti was also the ‘uncle’ of modern terrorists such as Arafat.

    Fjordman is a counterjihadist good guy; Dahl and his leftist dhimmi ilk are bad guys, as things stand right now.

    • I haven’t read that book but I’ve heard Rothmann talk about it. What stood out is the gleeful way he pronounced his view that it was the Nazis who taught Muslims how to be virulently anti-Semitic. It was as though the chief contribution of his research was to lift opprobrium off the Muslims and place it squarely on white Europeans (and as I recall, Rothmann did stress that the Nazis were indeed Europeans).

      It’s true that a deep vein of anti-Jewish prejudice runs through Christian European history (although the Romans had not always been hospitable either). But it’s ignorant or self-deluding to believe that Muslims had to learn their Jew-hatred from anywhere else but Islam.

      • “It’s true that a deep vein of anti-Jewish prejudice runs through Christian European history (although the Romans had not always been hospitable either). ”

        I’m no expert on pre-medieval europe. But does anyone know if there were any anti-jewish pogroms by christians in Europe before the 11th century? Wikipedia blames christians for starting such pogroms, then blithely goes on to recount the first 3 pogroms as being in the 11th century. Only it recounts that 2 of them occurred in Spain, and 1 in Morocco. And in each instance, it was muslims who did the pogroms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom#Medieval

        I have read various accounts of how jews were pivotal intermediaries in the trade (and emasculation) of christians enslaved and taken into muslim-occupied territories. I’m not a christian, but if it is true that jews played this pivotal role in such a heinous trade, then I can well understand why any hostility towards jews intensified following the fightback against islam and islamisation.

        I guess Hitler used his time-machine and transported himself back to 11th century Grenada to teach the muslims how to conduct a pogrom. Silly me. No wonder I was never any good at history. Wikipedia seem to have used the same time machine to blame christians in europe for what muslims in Spain did 100 years earlier.

  6. Who is Fjordman? I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman! I am Fjordman!

    (“I am Spartacus” 1960 movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCmyiljKo0 (ff to 0:50)

    We are all Fjordman!


  7. There was only one Dark Lord (Darth Vader) and that is Muhummad.

    Muhummad’s gait was firm and he walked so fast that others found it difficult to keep pace with him. His face was blank, like a mask, and often deep in thought with long periods of silence. He did not speak unnecessarily but when he did speak it was throaty and rasping. At times he would make his meaning clear by slowly repeating what he had said. He kept his feelings under firm control, but when annoyed he would give a compliment and turn aside, the point having already been made. (Shamail Tirmizi).



  8. We are proud of you, Fjordman ! I can’t wait for your book to be published. Love you.

  9. Alas, due to the continuing HUGE success of the obama economic “recovery” program and “improvements” in the senior heath care scheme caused by obama-care, we are unable to make a financial donation at this time.

    Our reduction to genteel poverty has made even the purchase of fuel for our ancient and dented vehicle difficult and almost nearly impossible…. we dine no longer on fresh fruit and veggies, but rely on whatever canned goods the book bank has to offer. Meat? Tinned only , thank you !! We have come to LOVE IT!!

    Should a miracle happen someday , WE WILL make a donation…. because we do adore that HONEST Fjordman.

  10. Someone tell Mr. Bormark that Norway’s image as a “peace nation” has been well and truly sullied already by the strange way in which its Nobel committee awards the peace prize, and by its political/media/academic establishment’s war against its own indigenous population. And the “Hitler” analogies remind us that Norway is hardly known as a champion of Jewish rights. (Fjordman alludes to this point in referencing Prof. Dahl’s defense of David Irving.)

    Something very strange about modern Norwegian politics is how the cultural fixation on egalitarianism and conformity is being forcefully tied to a policy of mass importation of people whose beliefs and values and mores are radically at odds with those of ordinary, ethnic Norwegians, and whose intention is not to be equal but to be dominant.

    So, where can the cultural elites enforce conformity? In the expression of opinion, and specifically opinion about whether the mass influx of people with a hostile culture does or does not threaten Norway’s “shared values,” not to mention the physical safety of Norwegians. And which “values” need most to be protected from any challenge? Apparently, these: “We Norwegians are tolerant. We are all equal. Everybody deserves an equal chance to live in Norway and benefit from North Sea oil revenues. Islam is absolutely not to be criticized, ever. We won’t tolerate that.”

    • It’s true that academic leftism throughout the Western world has for some time been marked by a curious combination of a “diversity” fetish and enforced intellectual conformity. In Norway the culture of consensus runs particularly deep, but it has to be maintained with increasingly forcible means as the foundations of the consensus are being pulverized.

      Scandinavian countries used to exemplify a high degree of social trust (and honesty, and fair play) resting on ethnic similarity and a common history. The political/media/academic elites appear to believe they can impose social trust from the top after smashing its traditional basis to smithereens. Failing that — and it will fail — they’ll punish anyone who speaks openly about the reckless (or malignant) shattering of trust. And sadly, the culture of consensus itself will keep many people silent about the betrayal.

      • 25 years ago, academics were ejaculating with enthusiasm for post-modernism and post-fordism.

        Seems to me they’v never got beyond Ford’s “you can have any colour you want, as long as it’s black”. You can have any diversity you want, as long as you don’t have diversity of opinion.

  11. But of course diversity of opinion is the only kind of diversity that really matters in human affairs. “Race” only exists to the extent that a particular national culture has created a correspondence between a group of common opinions and the genetic traits common to that nation. Where a “racial” group does not maintain conformity of an opinion notably distinct from that of people not belonging to that “race”, the race assimilates into the larger human population and ceases to be differentiable. The same holds true for all other forms of diversity, the only reason any of them matter is because of the associated divergence in opinion from that which is common.

    Individualists recognize that each individual can have an original opinion (even if most don’t). While the types of opinions that a given individual has are bound to be influenced by their life experiences, which are affected by aspects of innate talent or limitation, the opinion itself is not a determined outcome of such influences, but is ultimately a matter of personal choice.

    Philosophers recognize that an opinion cannot be judged on its merits except by knowing the opinion, and that the only authority on an opinion is the originator of it. Thus one cannot find out what Fjordman’s opinion is by consulting those who do not share his opinion, and of course Fjordman is himself the authority on whether or not someone does share his opinion.

    Pragmaticists realize that the main test of opinions is how they make the individual which holds them act. How does Fjordman act? From this we may find out the moral value of his opinions even without understanding the opinion itself.

    It seems that those denigrating Fjordman’s opinions as being beyond the pale of reasoned discourse demonstrate that they do not have any of the qualifications necessary to claim a commitment to reasoned discourse.

  12. The leaders of Norway have it upside-down. They’re allowing their country to be re-occupied by the new Nazis while calling Fjordman Hitler.


  13. Your truths will set us all free.

    My 13 son has a girl in his class with Norwegian parents and he sometimes tells her my “shocking” opinions , then they are both sure that I am wrong because the teachers in Australia tell them so.

    Soon they will be old enough to read your work for themselves with a bit of discretion as to whom they tell.

    Keep up the good fight. We get no real news from overseas without blogs like yours.

Comments are closed.