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.

Leave a Reply to Tom Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.