Fjordman Interview, Part 4: “There Really Was a Witch Hunt”

This is the fourth excerpt from a January 11 interview with Fjordman. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Below is the fourth installment of the interview, recorded on January 7 and published on January 11. It was translated for subtitles by Fjordman himself. The interviewer is Hans Rustad, the editor of The interview was taped on January 7 and published online on January 11.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

For more on Simen Sætre, see “The Media Myths”, “Breivik, the Useful Nutcase”, and “Icebergophobia on the Titanic”.

Video transcript:

32:03   One of the things that Anders Behring Breivik himself stated…
32:06   During the trial in 2012, he was asked why he committed his actions.
32:12   He then stated that he wanted to provoke a “witch hunt” of moderate conservatives and nationalists.
32:19   He was very happy that the media had created this witch hunt.
32:22   He didn’t say this just once. He stated it repeatedly during the trial, at least 3 or 4 times.
32:26   He believed that this would radicalize people.
32:29   He stated explicitly that he wanted a witch hunt [“heksejakt”].
32:32   This was quoted by media such as Aftenposten and [Norwegian] TV2 back then, but quickly forgotten.
32:39   There are two ways you can deal with this fact.
32:42   You can state that Anders Behring Breivik is insane, and that nothing he says carries any weight.
32:46   This viewpoint may well be entirely correct. However, if you truly believe
32:51   that he is sane, then you cannot simply ignore this part of the story.
32:55   Because there really was a witch hunt that affected me as well as others.
33:00   The “nice” version of history which [the author] Åsne Seierstad writes
33:06   ignores this part of the story.
33:10   I don’t know if you recall [professor] Thomas Hylland Eriksen.
33:14   He wrote an essay in the New York Times, together with [the author] Jostein Gaarder.
33:21   I remember that one well.
33:28   [The text] indicated that so-called Islamophobes are more dangerous than Islamists.
33:33   Thomas Hylland Eriksen was also co-author of an essay in Aftenposten,
33:38   claiming that freedom of expression should be restricted.
33:42   He was one of the people who suggested this, after the July 22 attacks.
33:48   That is correct. An even more dangerous idea
33:54   was the concept that words are actions.
34:01   This was referred to as a “speech act” [tankehandling].
34:05   That is a very Marxist way of thinking.
34:08   It is promoted by a long-time Marxist activist such as Lars Gule.
34:12   The concept that words are actions.
34:16   But this is an Orwellian term.
34:19   Yes, it is Orwellian.
34:22   But this term was accepted into the public discourse in Norway.
34:30   The next step would then be thought crime.
34:36   We have actually gotten some laws pointing in that direction.
34:43   With a reversed burden of proof, for instance. Yes. Already the Anti-Discrimination Act,
34:48   which I was highly critical of, implemented shared or reversed burden of proof.
34:52   You have to prove that you did not discriminate against somebody else.
34:56   That is a very dangerous path.
35:02   Many subjects related to Breivik are swept under the rug or not debated.
35:09   If you read my book Vitne til vanvidd [Witness to Madness]… perhaps I should have brought a copy.
35:13   My own book effectively begins on July 23, 2011.
35:17   Regarding the attacks, I cannot say more about this subject than what others have already said.
35:25   How much time did the police use until they finally got to Utøya?
35:29   Regarding such issues, I merely summarize what other people have written before me.
35:32   I have nothing new to add there.
35:35   Where my book is substantially different
35:38   from those written by Åsne Seierstad, Geir Lippestad and others
35:41   is that I describe the witch hunt that took place after Breivik had been arrested.
35:47   That is an aspect of this case that is often either downplayed
35:54   or written out of the official history. Yet it was very real.
35:59   I could have added several hundred pages more [to my Norwegian book]
36:02   simply with real mentions of me in the media.
36:05   I cut out some of this material because otherwise
36:08   the book would have become too long and repetitive.
36:11   However, a web search on my real name or my pen name can generate tens of thousands of hits.
36:17   The sheer volume is absurd.
36:20   Why do you think your name became so charged?
36:29   That journalist in [the weekly newspaper] Morgenbladet who wrote a book about you…
36:35   Simen Sætre, whom you met…
36:42   I can say a few words about Simen Sætre.
36:45   I have been asked why I have not sued anybody for libel after July 22.
36:49   Many weird claims about me have been published [since then].
36:52   Frankly, I am not sure if I would have prevailed in the Norwegian courts. In a decade, I have never
37:00   received any support from the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission [Pressens Faglige Utvalg, PFU].
37:04   During the past ten years, I have sent two formal complaints to the Press Complaints Commission.
37:07   I did not receive any support [from PFU]. I doubt whether I would have received any support from
37:11   the Norwegian legal system. However, of all the potential legal cases I have not pursued so far,
37:15   Simen Sætre and the publishing house Cappelen Damm top my list.
37:19   Simen Sætre wrote a book about me that is bad and should never have been published, in my view.
37:27   In this book, he has, without my consent, published a conversation about mass murder.
37:35   There are no witnesses to this conversation, nor any audio recording or video recording. Nothing.
37:40   He has published what I consider to be a false version of a conversation dealing with mass murder.
37:45   Furthermore, this conversation was also an ambush when I was about to eat dinner.
37:48   It was not a pre-arranged interview. What is stated in the book which Simen Sætre
37:52   and Cappelen Damm published about me is a falsification of history. Period. In my view they
37:57   should have been convicted because of this, and the book should have been taken out of circulation.
38:02   Plain and simple. I have no problems saying this
38:06   in front of a camera. If they don’t like this, they can meet me in court.
38:10   As long as they pay the legal expenses, this is perfectly fine by me.
38:14   They are the ones who should be convicted here.

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

3 thoughts on “Fjordman Interview, Part 4: “There Really Was a Witch Hunt”

  1. A traumatic experience of injustice. Unenviable. Much sympathy to you. Your writings are very much appreciated for their perceptiveness and sense.

  2. Many thanks for your exceptional essays, Fjordman. You have absolutely no reason top regret anything.

Comments are closed.