Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at FrontPage Mag. Some excerpts are below:
You can tell a lot about a society by watching what kind of people it puts into positions of power and influence.
Thorbjørn Jagland is a former Prime Minister of Norway from the Norwegian Labour Party. Since 2009, he has been the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (CoE). He was reelected to this position for a second term, with the support of parliamentarians from across Europe, on June 24 2014.
The CoE was established in 1949. It is distinct from and less powerful than the European Union. However, it has a formalized cooperation with the EU on a range of issues, for instance those related to immigration. This cooperation has been strengthened under Jagland’s lead. The CoE further enjoys friendly relations with many Islamic organizations and has made combating so-called “Islamophobia” in Europe one of its stated priorities.
In addition to heading the Council of Europe, for years Mr. Jagland has also been the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awards the annual Nobel Peace Prize. Under his leadership, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 2009 to Barack Hussein Obama, when he had only been US President for a few months. In 2012, Jagland and the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to the European Union (EU). The Socialist Jagland has for decades been a passionate supporter of supranational organizations such as the EU.
One of the three women who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011, Tawakkol Karman from Yemen, has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Norwegian Nobel Committee knew about this and thought it was fine. Jagland told reporters in Oslo that he disagrees with the widespread “perception” in the West that the Brotherhood is a threat to democracy. The very same man has warned repeatedly for years against the allegedly great dangers presented by “Islamophobia” and people who peacefully voice anti-Islamic viewpoints.
In Jagland’s view, being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood makes you a potential partner worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. If, on the other hand, you peacefully oppose Islamic inroads into the Western world then that makes you virtually a threat to world peace.
On August 1 2013, Thorbjørn Jagland “attacked the Norwegian press for allowing the extremist blogger Peder ‘Fjordman’ Jensen to air his anti-Islamic views.” He 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.”
In July 2013, he stated that he fears violence in Europe due to increasing xenophobia and the “criminal” views held by some people regarding mass immigration. In an essay in the daily Dagsavisen, Jagland expressed concern that if people like me were able to express their views, convicted 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.”
Read the rest at FrontPage Mag.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.
“In an essay in the daily Dagsavisen, Jagland expressed concern that if people like me [=Fjordman] were able to express their views, convicted murderers might be next. … Jagland’s claim was that if we allow evil people like me to broadcast their opinions in the public debate, the next logical step would be giving an open microphone to serial killers.”
Huh? Jagland (and Fjordman too?) seems to be implying that convicted murders have no free-speech rights to express their views. Since when, and in what country? Surely a convicted honor-murderer has First Amendment (or equivalent) rights, especially after he has served his full two-year term.
(Had he killed not a spouse but a child or grandchild, that’s not even murder, says Umdat al-Salik.)
“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 . . .
Well now, shouldn’t the same comparison apply to any and all Islamic writings that are critical of infidel society (without actually calling for violence), and all those who “act on” the Islamic contempt for infidels in a violent way?
The only problem I see with my analogy is that Breivik didn’t target Muslims …
I seem to recall that Jagland is also one of the key figures in the Socialism International cabal: heir to KGB-led Comintern. He was SI’s Vice President and chair of SI’s Middle East Committee – with predictable consequences. But it is Norway’s twisted weltanschauung, not Jagland, that spares Jagland from a public trial for toxic subversion and puts him in the position to smear a Norwegian –are there more than one? — who alone stands athwart one of the main venues of Jagland & Co’s subversion.
I consider myself a sane and rational man. I am also highly educated and well informed on world affairs. Therefore, I consider myself qualified to make a reasonable observation here:
Fjordman seems completely correct in his writings on the state of Western civilisation and its ongoing colonisation by Islamic aliens. He raises excellent points that should be of concern to all Western people.
Mr. Jagland, on the other hand, seems utterly insane.
It isn’t Islamophobia, it’s Islamoreality.