If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.
Islamization and the 2013 Elections in Norway
The left-wing coalition of PM Jens Stoltenberg has conceded defeat in the September 2013 elections in Norway. The likely new Prime Minister will be Erna Solberg of the Conservative Party (Høyre), who is unfortunately still a devout Multiculturalist. She is currently engaged in talks with three other center-right parties (by local standards) who together hold the majority in the new Parliament. One of these is the country’s third largest party, the right-wing Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet). For the first time ever, they now look set to become a part of a coalition government or at least have some type of formalized cooperation with the new government.
The prospect that this party might have some influence over the country’s immigration policies has caused panicked reactions among members of the heavily left-leaning press. However, the Progress Party in Norway is softer than the Danish People’s Party in Denmark or the Sweden Democrats in Sweden. It stubbornly refuses to associate with either of these perfectly legitimate parties in public. This is a cowardly decision.
The problem with the Progress Party in recent years is that they have tried to appease and placate the hostile mass media. A better option would be to simply accept that the media will always be hostile to everybody who is critical of mass immigration. Accepting this makes it easier to go on the offensive. Trying to placate hostile journalists only makes one look weak.
This problem has grown worse after the big national trauma in Norway: Anders Behring Breivik’s massacre of 77 people on July 22, 2011. Breivik was for a limited time an unimportant local member of a Progress Party chapter in one part of Oslo, but he left because he could not find room for a career there. He openly stated in his so-called manifesto that he suspected that his brief association with this party would create problems for them after his terror attacks. He seemed to derive satisfaction from this thought, and further stated during the trial that he wanted to trigger a “witch-hunt” on non-violent groups on the political Right.
The mass media have given him pretty much what he wanted in this regard. The unfair attacks by the press and the political establishment on the Progress Party for somehow preparing the grounds for Breivik’s massacre were initially quite strong, and continue to some extent to this day. Breivik has become a very convenient tool for smearing critics of Islam and mass immigration.
On September 10 2013, immediately after the elections, the British newspaper The Independent ran the following headline: “Norway election results: Anti-immigrant party with links to mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik set to enter government under Conservative leader Erna Solberg.” Corriere della Sera, one of Italy’s major newspapers, labeled them the “Breivik party.” The Progress Party argued that such labels are unfair and might damage Norway’s reputation abroad. They called for a press conference to dispel such accusations.
The outgoing Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of the Labour Party challenged Siv Jensen, the leader of the Progress Party, to publicly apologize for using the term “sneak-Islamization.” She refused, but Ketil Solvik-Olsen, the party’s deputy leader, earlier told a meeting with foreign journalists that Jensen’s claim that Norway faced the threat of “sneak-Islamization” had been unfortunate. He apologized for this.
Siv Jensen had previously used the term “snikislamisering,” which might be translated as “stealth-Islamization,” “sneak-Islamization” or “creeping Islamization.” Of course, in real life this term is now inadequate. What we are seeing in parts of Western Europe today is no longer stealth-Islamization; it’s open, galloping Islamization.
Norway’s most controversial refugee is the militant Muslim known as Mullah Krekar. In the past he has praised the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and has suggested that Muslims will colonize and dominate Europe because they breed like “mosquitoes.” Krekar, then in prison for making death threats, in August 2013 stated in a letter that Muslims in Norway should support the reelection of PM Jens Stoltenberg and vote for the Socialist parties. This because in Mullah Krekar’s view, “The strategy for the Leftists and Muslims has much in common.”
The country’s most notorious militant Muslim thus wanted the Labour Party leader Jens Stoltenberg reelected because this would further Islamization. At the same time, the Labour Party leader Jens Stoltenberg wanted people from right-wing parties to apologize just for merely mentioning Islamization.
Members of the political Left and the press — which largely seems to be the same thing — continue to demonize the rather soft Progress Party. Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the national daily Dagbladet and one of the country’s high-profile columnists, indicated that simply mentioning Islamization at all makes you a borderline right-wing extremist. Mina Adampour, a so-called anti-racist and far-Left activist of Iranian origins, in the leading newspaper Aftenposten labeled the Progress Party MP Christian Tybring-Gjedde a “conspiracy theorist” because he had dared to suggest that mass immigration might threaten the nation’s native culture.
These and similar articles are clearly attempts to bully the Progress Party into dropping what they have left of restrictive immigration policies.
Hilde Sandvik, the editor of the regional daily Bergens Tidende, believes the calls for ideological cleansing after Breivik have totalitarian underpinnings. They resemble religious ideas about purification rites to ward off evil. She also noted that immigration had hardly been mentioned as an important issue during the elections, which is true.
One of the subjects that came up after July 2011 was press censorship and media bias. The Norwegian mass media claimed that there is no significant media bias. This is clearly not true. The ongoing immigration is so large that it could render the native population a minority in their own country within a few decades, and it costs huge sums every single year. Neighboring Sweden, which shares a very long and weakly protected border with Norway, has even bigger problems and suffered major immigrant riots in 2013.
These issues are of critical importance for the demographic, cultural and economic future of the country and the entire continent. Even so, they were barely debated by the leading political parties during the election campaign. The mass media did their very best to keep a lid on all issues related to immigration. The very same journalists will often ruthlessly attack anybody who suggests even rather modest reductions in immigration.
On September 7, 2013, just two days before the national elections in Norway, the major newspaper Aftenposten published a largely positive interview with the then Minister of Finance Sigbjørn Johnsen from the Labour Party, together with his 18-year-old daughter. This was a couple of days after Swedish authorities had announced that all Syrians who came to Sweden would get instant permanent residency for themselves and their family members in Syria. Millions of people were then on the run from the Syrian civil war, and many of them could potentially get permanent residency in Scandinavia.
Throughout 2013 the small business daily Finansavisen published a series of carefully researched articles detailing just how extremely costly non-European mass immigration is for Norway. In 2006 the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) published numbers indicating that mass immigration is so costly that it could wipe out a large proportion of Norway’s considerable oil wealth. The bill runs into tens of billions of kroner every single year, a very large sum for a small country.
One would think that this would be a natural thing to ask a sitting Minister of Finance from the country’s largest political party about during an election campaign. But no, Aftenposten’s journalists Marie Melgård and Ida De Rosa didn’t ask the Minister a single critical question about this subject. As a matter of fact, the word “immigration” wasn’t mentioned once throughout the entire article. Minister of Finance Sigbjørn Johnsen was there presented as a competent leader and caring father who wanted to make a better future for his daughter. He admitted that the future might be more challenging for her generation, economically speaking. Yet he was still confident that future generations will thank his left-wing government for its policies and decisions.
Will they now, really? I looked at his teenage daughter with her long blond hair and thought about what it will be like for her when she is a minority in her own capital city a generation from now, and perhaps in the entire country two generations from now. Is it good for her to know that she is in effect funding her own colonization and national destruction, as are the other natives in Scandinavia and Western Europe?
We didn’t get to know the answer to that question because it wasn’t asked. It should have been.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.