The Camp of the Sane and The Camp of the Saints — A Book Review

Long-time readers will remember Max Denken, who contributed a number of essays here several years ago. Mr. Denken retired from the scene to write books about our civilizational crisis. Fjordman has kindly reviewed the first one for Gates of Vienna readers.

The Camp of the Sane and The Camp of the Saints — A Book Review

by Fjordman

It is not every day that you come across a book dedicated to the continued survival of an entire civilization. Yet the author Max Denken has written just such a text. He has previously written under the pen name Takuan Seiyo for dissident online publications such as Gates of Vienna, The Brussels Journal, The New English Review, Quarterly Review, Takimag and others. His well-written and carefully researched book about the future of European civilization is called The Camp of the Sane and The Camp of the Saints: Poland and the erosion of Western sanity, 2015—2020.

The title is a reference to The Camp of the Saints (“Le Camp des Saints”), a novel from 1973 by the French author Jean Raspail. It predicted a Third World mass invasion of Europe, causing the downfall of Western civilization. This process was compressed in time so that what might take fifty years in real life took fifty days in the book. In addition, the bulk of illegal immigrants in the novel came from India. Today, while immigration to Europe comes from every corner of the planet, much of it comes from the Islamic world and Africa.

Apart from that, the novel was remarkably prescient in describing the dysfunctional mindset of the modern Western world. We have become so wedded to unsustainable humanitarian ideals that we are mentally incapable of defending our national existence. When faced with millions of people coming from the global South, we simply raise a white flag and say that they are welcome to colonize our countries. At least, that is what our leaders and mass media do. The EU and Pope Francis react to illegal mass migration in the Mediterranean in almost exactly the manner described in Raspail’s book decades earlier. Europe risks committing suicide because of abstract humanitarian ideals and a Globalist ideology of open borders.

Jean Raspail died in June 2020, shortly before he would have turned 95. He lived to see his native France and other Western countries being partly overrun by migrants. Max Denken completed The Camp of the Sane in the summer of 2020, just as the author of The Camp of the Saints died. Western cities were then engulfed in Black Lives Matter protests, attacks on statues and European monuments and sometimes violent riots. Western mass media presented U.S. President Trump as an extremely evil man, as they had been doing continuously for five years. Some Western media said more positive things about the Communist dictator Fidel Castro when he died in November 2016 than they said about Donald Trump when he won free elections that some month.

Max Denken has Polish ancestry, has lived in California for many years and worked in other parts of the world. He considers the entire Western world to be deeply sick and heading for some form of collapse. This applies to North America as well as Western Europe. Against this crumbling Camp of the Saints, Denken pits what he terms The Camp of the Sane. Roughly speaking, this encompasses much of the eastern half of Europe, or at least the eastern quarter. Ironically, these are countries that were squeezed and bloodied between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union during the Second World War and endured generations of repressive Communist rule during the Cold War. Perhaps their recent historical experiences have provided these nations with a stronger resistance against ideological indoctrination.

Western Europe still has some brave political leaders such as Geert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini, but they may have emerged too late to save their countries from collapse. The Western world and what remains of its civilization are in freefall. Denken does not rule out the possibility that something sensible can be created in North America out of the disunited Multicultural mess that is present-day USA and Canada. However, he believes that the best future prospects for European civilization lie in Central and Eastern Europe.

The countries of Central and Eastern Europe no doubt believed that they had joined a sensible project for European cooperation and joint prosperity when they joined the EU. Some of them have come to realize that the increasingly repressive EU now resembles a cultural suicide pact. Money from the EU may seem tempting to nations that were left impoverished after decades of Communist rule. Yet these are silver coins laced with ideological poison. For 1400 years, the forces of Islam have been the collective enemy of the peoples of Europe. Now, the EU wants to force formerly independent European countries to take in Muslim immigrants.

Continue reading

Fjordman Interview, Part 7: “An Entire Civilization That Has Lost the Ability to Think”

This is the seventh and final excerpt from a January 11 interview with Fjordman. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.

Below is the final installment of the Document.no interview, recorded on January 7 and published on January 11. It was translated for subtitles by Fjordman himself.

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

For more on Øyvind Strømmen, see:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Fjordman Interview, Part 6: “Breivik Wanted to Copy al-Qaida”

This is the sixth excerpt from a January 11 interview with Fjordman. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

Below is the sixth installment of the Document.no interview, recorded on January 7 and published on January 11. It was translated for subtitles by Fjordman himself.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Fjordman Interview, Part 5: “They Had to Invent a Version of Me as the Culprit”

This is the fifth excerpt from a January 11 interview with Fjordman. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Below is the fifth installment of the Document.no interview, recorded on January 7 and published on January 11. It was translated for subtitles by Fjordman himself.

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

For more on Breivik’s letters from prison see “Breivik’s ‘Double-Psychology’””.

Video transcript:

Continue reading

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 Document.no 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 Document.no. 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:

Continue reading

Fjordman Interview, Part 3: “I Had No Good Choices Left”

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

The interview was recorded on January 7 and published on January 11 by Document.no. The interviewer is Hans Rustad, the editor of Document.no. It was translated for subtitles by Fjordman himself.

It’s good to see my friend Steen receive public credit for the crucial role he played helping Fjordman during the latter’s exile from Norway.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Fjordman Interview, Part 2: “Reality Surpasses the Imagination”

This is the second excerpt from a January 11 interview with Fjordman. Previously: Part 1.

Watching this interview and then looking up the posts from that time really brought back the horrible events of the summer of 2011. After the grueling live-blog of July 22, I was awakened in the wee hours of July 23 by a phone call from Europe — a colleague in the Counterjihad Collective frantically informed me about what was happening to Fjordman.

In this interview Fjordman refers to some of those events. Here’s the initial live blog on the Oslo attack. Then came this report. Early the following day there was this.

I recommend clicking through to the other posts from those days in July and August. There are too many to link here.

Below is the second installment of the Document.no interview, recorded on January 7 and published on January 11. It was translated for subtitles by Fjordman himself. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Fjordman Interview, Part 1: The Mark of Cain

July 22 of this year will mark the tenth anniversary of the explosion and massacre committed by Anders Behring Breivik in the city of Oslo and on the island of Utøya. Seventy-seven people were killed, many of them teenagers attending a left-wing summer camp on Utøya.

The Butcher of Utøya implicated our Norwegian correspondent Fjordman by citing his writings in his (Breivik’s) “manifesto”. Longtime readers will remember that Gates of Vienna was drawn into the center of the whole ugly affair because we happened to be the principal venue for Fjordman’s essays. Life was nasty for a while here at Schloss Bodissey as a result.

Any consequences we may have suffered, however, pale in comparison to what Fjordman went through. For months there were calls for him to be arrested, especially as the time of Mr. Breivik’s trial approached in the spring of 2012. Fjordman was forced to flee the country, and resided outside of Norway for a number of years. When the situation became less ominous he returned home, but had been so thoroughly stigmatized that he was unable to find a job, and is now planning to leave the country again.

For a sample of Fjordman’s observations on the Breivik trial, see the essays “Fjordman’s Suggested Testimony for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik” and “Fjordman on the Verdict in the Breivik Trial”.

For the first time since he was publicly identified during those fateful events, Fjordman has given a video interview under his real name, Peder Jensen. The interviewer is Hans Rustad, the editor of the independent news website Document.no. The interview was taped on January 7 and published online on January 11.

The full interview is more than an hour long. The following clip covers the opening seven minutes. It was translated for subtitles by Fjordman himself.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

What is the Purpose of Writing?

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

What is the purpose of writing?

by Fjordman

I was told by a person who has known me for decades and wishes me well that I should apologize publicly and distance myself from much of what I have previously written. Only then will it be possible for me to get a job in Norway.

Since 2011, I have spent years in exile, gone without a job and received a lot of negative publicity. All of this because I have written lawful texts about real problems that were quoted without my consent by a person I have never met. Nevertheless, apparently large sections of Norwegian society expect me to apologize.

My starting point is simple: I am not going to submit in order to gain a more comfortable life. I can be wrong, as all people can be. But if so, I want it to be an honest mistake, not something I say to give in to censorship.

It does not make sense to apologize when many of my predictions have proven to be correct. I warned in 2005 and earlier that continued mass immigration could trigger wars in countries such as Sweden and France. There are now warlike conditions in parts of Sweden. Swedish cities experience bombs on a weekly basis. Despite this, mass immigration continues, while censorship is getting stronger in many Western countries.

I fear that Western societies are heading for some form of collapse, and that texts I or others publish about this subject will not change the outcome. Fifteen years ago, I still thought it might be possible to prevent this outcome by warning against the problems we import or create. Today I no longer believe this.

The big question then becomes the following: If you do not think that what you write can prevent anything, nor that it is possible to warn others, what is then the purpose of writing? I have given this dilemma a lot of thought for several years. Not the least because writing has caused me a lot of harassment.

There are several reasons for writing even if you do not think that your warnings can help prevent anything.

We inherited a country from the generations who came before us. We will pass this country on to those who come after us. For the sake of past and future generations, you should have a duty to protest publicly against the destruction of a society which others fought to build or will inherit.

You can write to document what is happening. This is not unimportant. It can be helpful and valuable for people to read later exactly what was said and done in this age. This is especially important because many powerful individuals will try to avoid any form of responsibility for the Multicultural problems that have been created. The more thoroughly their statements and actions have been documented, the harder it will be in the future for people in positions of power to claim that they did not know. Many of them did know, or should have known.

You can write in an attempt to understand what has gone wrong with our culture, but also to understand what we did right in the past. This has always been important to me personally. Islam is boring and has nothing positive to contribute. I write about Islam because it represents a threat to my country and my continent. It is a duty that does not give me any pleasure.

Continue reading

Fjordman: Why Laws Against Hate Speech Are Dangerous

Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at the Gatestone Institute. Below are some excerpts.

In November 2019, Germans celebrated the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany 30 years earlier. That same month, Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a speech to the German federal parliament (Bundestag), advocated more restrictions on free speech for all Germans. She warned that free speech has limits:

“Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise, our society will no longer be the free society that it was.”

Merkel received great applause.

Critics, however, would claim that curtailing freedom in order to protect freedom sounds a bit Orwellian. One of the first acts of any tyrant or repressive regime is usually to abolish freedom of speech. Merkel should know this: she lived under a repressive regime — in the communist dictatorship of East Germany, where she studied at Karl Marx University.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, specifically speech critical of the government, and prohibits the state from limiting free speech. The First Amendment was placed first in the Bill of Rights because the American Founding Fathers realized that freedom of speech is fundamental to a free society. US President George Washington said:

“For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences… reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”

Without freedom of speech, you cannot truly be free. Freedom of speech exists precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

What exactly is “hate speech,” and who gets to define it? Those who love justice usually also hate injustice. But what is justice? Social justice? Economic justice? Ecological justice? Religious fundamentalist justice? Climate justice?

Continue reading

What White Privilege?

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

What White Privilege?

by Fjordman

One concept that has become influential in American society is the notion of “white privilege.” This is the idea that Europeans and people of European origins overseas enjoy special privileges due to their skin color and ethnic background. The related concept of “whiteness studies” is now also widely established in American universities. African studies celebrate Africans and Asian studies celebrate Asians. Yet whiteness studies have a generally negative focus on Europeans, their cultural identities, history and achievements.

Because the USA has been the dominant economic and cultural power in the Western world since the Second World War, ideas such as “white privilege” and “whiteness studies” are also exported to Europe. The notion of “white privilege” is already questionable in North America, where Europeans do not constitute the native population. The concept becomes entirely meaningless in Europe, where Europeans are the natives.

The ongoing mass immigration to Europe is sometimes portrayed as a “payback for colonialism.” It is true that some European nations such as Portugal, Spain, France, Britain and to a certain extent the Netherlands had colonial empires in the past. However, Algerians and other Africans were considered justified in expelling French people from their soil. If so, why should the French accept being colonized by Algerians or other Africans today?

The British did rule the entire Indian subcontinent. However, they were never very numerous there during colonial times. They did not displace the natives in their major cities. In contrast, the white natives already are a minority in many urban areas throughout Western Europe today. It is increasingly difficult to find an ethnic English person in parts of London, or a native Frenchman in parts of Paris.

Moreover, the British, French and other Europeans also built hospitals, railways and infrastructure in the areas they ruled. The population explosion in the global South is partly due to European science and technology.

Contrast this with the behavior of far too many of the recent immigrants to Europe. Muslims, many of them from Pakistan and Bangladesh, are currently engaged in sexual abuse, gang rapes and torture of native white girls in cities across Britain. This did not happen in South Asia when the British ruled there. British authorities knew about these crimes for years, but covered them up because they were scared of being called racists. Do white girls who are drugged and raped by Muslims in Britain enjoy white privilege? Does Tommy Robinson enjoy “white privilege” for being jailed while protesting the literal and metaphorical rape of his people?

Smaller countries such as Norway and Finland gained their national independence in the early twentieth century. At this point, neither of them held any colonies. Yet today there are Muslims from Bangladesh, Syria and Afghanistan living in Finland. Norway has sizeable and growing communities of Pakistanis and Somalis, even though Norwegians have never ruled Pakistan or Somalia throughout all of history. Oslo is the capital city of a small country straddling the Arctic Circle. Yet there may well be more ethnic groups living in Oslo today than there are member states in the United Nations (UN).

Like many other European countries, Norway has essentially become a hyper-colony for the entire planet. This mass immigration also costs a lot of money through welfare payments. The white natives are thus forced to fund their own colonization and are expected to applaud their national destruction. What kind of privilege is that?

Continue reading

An Overview of the Islamization of Europe

Regular readers will remember Jose Atento of the Brazilian blog Lei Islâmica em Ação, who has been translating material and sending reports for the past few years. Last weekend in Quebec I was interviewed by Mr. Atento, and he has translated my remarks into Portuguese for a Brazilian audience. He also translated his Portuguese introduction into English.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the recording and subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The Grauniad Strikes Again

The Guardian — a renowned progressive British newspaper that was called The Manchester Guardian when I lived in England — has published another factually-impaired hit piece on the Counterjihad. I normally ignore such trivialities, but this one contained a slur against me that I just had to correct:

Gates of Vienna was, and still is, run by Edward “Ned” May, an American computer programmer from Washington DC.

I am most emphatically not from Washington DC*. I was born in a small town here in Virginia, and have otherwise lived in Maryland and England. I worked in DC for four years back in the mid-’70s, but never lived there, thank the Lord — Northern Virginia was bad enough.

The Grauniad continues:

It was among the first in a wave of blogs that urged the US to war after the shock of 9/11, and almost certainly the most fanatically anti-Muslim. It takes its name from the siege of Vienna in 1683, when an Ottoman Turkish army was defeated by a Polish-led one. Its essential thesis is that this was only one battle in a long war and that Europe and its civilisation are constantly threatened by a Muslim invasion.

On these varied online forums, the narrative was always the same: a liberal cabal was conspiring with hostile Muslim powers to hand over the decent working people to Islam. This was the animating myth of the bloggers, calling themselves the “counter-jihad”, who congregated at Gates of Vienna and other like-minded sites — and inspired both the violence of Breivik and the message of the racist far-right parties that have transformed European politics in the past decade.

The part about Breivik is reiterating an earlier assertion in the article:

…according to the manifesto he published online, Breivik had been directly inspired by Gates of Vienna — the blog where all these comments appeared on the day of his massacre. Breivik called the ideology that justified his murders “The Vienna school”, after the blog.

This is typical of reportage by MSM “journalists”. They have been retailing this stuff about Anders Behring Breivik for more than eight years, as if Mr. Breivik himself had never explained that his Counterjihad affiliation was just a feint, a ruse designed to keep the media and the authorities away from his true friends, the “nordicists”, i.e. neo-Nazis and Aryan supremacists.

The Grauniad and all the other major outlets should be well aware of Mr. Breivik’s later explanations, because he sent them all a letter in the autumn of 2013. None of them reported on the second part of the letter, which contained his paean to the nordicists. We managed to obtain a copy of it in early 2014; the PDF is available here.

So why did the media decide to exhume the Breivik material at this late date? Apparently it’s because of last week’s shooting attack on a mosque in Oslo. As it happens, this paragraph contains yet another factual error:

Continue reading

Still Criminal After All These Years

It has been nearly eight years since Fjordman was driven into hiding by the uproar over the massacre by Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo and on the island of Utøya. The killer’s 1,500-page “manifesto” was packed with references to and quotes from the Counterjihad movement, with Fjordman and Robert Spencer heading the list.

The apparatchiks of the Legacy Culture — not just in the media, but academics, politicians, and public intellectuals — were unwilling to let a crisis go to waste. They let loose with both barrels against those of us who resist the Islamization of our societies. Since Gates of Vienna was Fjordman’s most frequent venue, we were drawn into the media frenzy along with the major players. Our fifteen minutes of fame went on for months, and I can’t tell you how glad we were when the furor finally died down.

When the uproar was at its height in early August of 2011, someone suggested to me that I might want to shut Gates of Vienna down to protect myself. I said, “[Epithet redacted] that! I’m not shutting anything down!” My Scottish blood comes to the fore whenever hostile forces poke at me, and my default response is always defiance.

I’m glad we decided to keep on with it, and follow the Breivik saga as it unfolded. The Butcher of Utøya was tried the following spring, convicted, and sentenced to the maximum prison term that Norwegian law allows — twenty-one years. He was eventually ensconced in a well-appointed prison suite, from which he issued occasional proclamations and demands via his lawyers.

A coda of sorts was provided in the fall of 2013, when Mr. Breivik sent a letter to various outlets of the mainstream media. In it he confessed that his devotion to the Counterjihad had been a hoax concocted to draw the blame away from his true allies, the “nordicist” movement — i.e. the neo-Nazis.

Strangely enough, Breivik’s confession received virtually no attention in the media. If it weren’t for the hard-left Swedish site Expo, we never would have been aware of it. We were fortunate to be able to obtain a copy of the letter (PDF), and posted it so that anyone who was interested could take a look.

But there weren’t many people interested in the fact that Breivik was actually a Nazi who held the milquetoasts of the Counterjihad in disdain. The media weren’t about to acknowledge that their Narrative had been utterly false. They had no intention of taking responsibility for ruining the reputations, careers, and lives of the people they had slandered. None of that was of any importance — the Narrative must go on.

Bruce Bawer has published a retrospective on the whole sorry affair at FrontPage Mag. Below are some excerpts:

Enemy of the People

Norway is still treating Peder “Fjordman” Jensen as a criminal.

by Bruce Bawer
April 16, 2019

Since 9/11, thousands of deadly jihadist atrocities, big and small, have taken place around the world. Almost uniformly, the Western media totally ignore the small ones, and also ignore the big ones that take place in Israel, the Muslim world, and non-Western locations generally. As for the large-scale terrorist acts that occur from time to time in major Western cities — that is to say, the attacks that are too massive and too close to home for the media to get away with ignoring — the mainstream journalists who cover them devote a good deal of their time to tiptoeing around, or openly and vociferously denying, the connection between these actions and the religion of Islam. Indeed, it is by now an indelible part of the media narrative in these instances that the real victims — or the first victims, or the ultimate victims — of jihadist terror are the members of Western Muslim communities who, we are repeatedly told, have been unfairly stigmatized ever since September 11, 2001, and who, in the wake of every new act of Islamic terror in the West, experience, or at least tremble in fear of, a fresh, powerful, and unjustified anti-Muslim backlash. Virtually never does any mainstream Western journalist ever acknowledge that jihadists, when they massacre infidel men, women, and children, are following explicit instructions set down in the Koran — the book that every believing Muslim on earth considers holy. Even now, going on eighteen years after 9/11, some journalists honestly don’t know that jihad comes right out the Koran; others do know, but would never publicly connect these dots. Neither would most politicians or media commentators or supposed “experts” in Islam. For to do so would be to violate the most important unwritten commandment of the post-9/11 Western world: namely, thou shalt not admit that those who commit murder in the name of Allah, far from being traitors to their faith, are, on the contrary, the most obedient of its adherents.

The media have done a remarkable job of keeping the lid on this truth. One of the few times in recent years when someone let it out of the box in a big way was on June 20, 2017, when Tommy Robinson, appearing as a guest on Good Morning, Britain, suddenly held up a copy of the Koran, sending the show’s host, Piers Morgan, into an instant, and palpable, panic: “Show some respect!” Piers insisted. “There are,” Tommy replied, “a hundred verses in this book inciting violence and murder against us.” Piers repeated, with a rare urgency, plainly rooted in trepidation: “Show some damn respect for people’s religious beliefs!” Tommy asked why he should be expected to “respect a book that incites murder against me.” “Put it down!” Piers again demanded, unwilling to answer a question that, in fact, answered itself. Tommy, refusing to put the book down, proceeded to quote critical remarks about Islam by prime ministers William Gladstone and Winston Churchill. Meanwhile Piers tried desperately to talk over him, calling him “a bigoted lunatic” and an “Islamophobe” and accusing him of “doing something deliberately inflammatory and poisonous” and “stirring up hatred.” Forcefully, Tommy countered: “This book is the reason we’re in such a mess!” Piers rejected this plain fact, feebly asserting that “terrorists abuse the nature of Islam” — a statement that made no sense whatsoever — and as Tommy began to read aloud a Koranic verse calling on believers to murder infidels, the segment was brought to an abrupt end. One can only imagine the sheer panic in the control room.

[…]

Before March 15, 2019, there was July 22, 2011, when Anders Behring Breivik exploded a truck bomb outside a government office building in Oslo and then shot up dozens of teenagers at a Labor Party youth camp on the nearby island of Utøya — his professed motive being to punish the politicians whom he considered responsible for the Islamization of Norway as well as the future politicians who would inherit the philosophies, policies, privileges, and powers of today’s Labor leaders. Before Breivik headed out that day to commit mass murder, he posted online a lengthy “manifesto” that was part history, part political commentary, and part instruction manual for those whom he imagined would join him in his crusade. Much of this document, it turned out, consisted of texts by other people that Breivik had lifted without permission. The person whose writings Breivik made the most extensive use of was a young Norwegian named Peder Jensen, who had written many sober and learned essays about Islam under the name “Fjordman.” Peder had attended the universities of Bergen and Oslo and the American University in Cairo, learned Arabic, earned a master’s degree with a thesis on Internet censorship in Iran, and was part of a civilian observer mission on the West Bank in 2002-3. He planned a diplomatic career, only to discover that his frankness about Islam was not welcome at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He then became a prolific writer on the subject. Unlike the Koran, however, Peder’s oeuvre contained not a single word calling for action of the sort of which Breivik was guilty. But that didn’t matter to the apologists for Islam in the Norwegian establishment. Immediately Peder was lumped in with Breivik and, to a very large extent, held responsible for his crimes. Other critics of Islam, myself included, were tarred with the same brush, but Peder got the worst of it by far.

Continue reading