In Defence of Fjordman and Hans Rustad

Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer sends this guest-post about the repressive political climate in Norway. His essay has also been published at his blog.


In defence of Fjordman and Hans Rustad
by The Observer

In the aftermath of the Oslo attacks on July 22, 2011, there has been a concerted effort to silence individuals who are opposed to the new multicultural Norwegian society. Vile accusations and libellous epithets have been allowed to dominate the media headlines in the months following the attacks. The instigators behind this formidable intimidation campaign are members of the extreme left who are unscrupulously capitalizing on a terrorist attack which cost 77 lives. These individuals have absolutely no qualms about exploiting such an event as long as it benefits their cause, which is to quash anyone voicing their displeasure of the new multicultural society in Norway, by any means necessary. Their preferred method is to publicly crush those who dare question them in their quest to deconstruct Norwegian society and replace it with a hardcore multicultural socialist dystopia, so that others with similar views remain silent out of fear of receiving the same harsh treatment.

In one of the lowest exhibits of human behaviour ever to be witnessed in Norway, members of the extreme left have taken an active role in accusing conservative political commentators such as Fjordman and Hans Rustad of having influenced (brainwashed) Anders Behring Breivik into committing one of the worst atrocities in Norwegian history. The accusations are insidious because they are by nature very hard to verify or to reject, and they are equally hard to defend against as they are based on emotional dishonesty rather than logical reasoning. The sole argument made by these left-wing extremists is that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad through their legitimate critique of Norwegian authorities’ attitudes towards immigration and willingness to appease the Muslim community have created Breivik the terrorist. One is left with the impression that it’s a punishable offence these days in Norway to tell the truth, at least if you’re a conservative political commentator.

What really exemplifies the dishonesty of the extreme left more than anything else is its complete and utter disregard for the truth. Anyone who has read the articles of Fjordman and Mr. Rustad will attest that the two have never advocated violence or tried to justify in any way the use of terrorist methods. As a matter of fact they have both strongly condemned the use of terrorist methods adopted by Islamic terrorists, and the fact that they have both been so adamant in their opposition to such methods from day one clearly proves without a shadow of a doubt that they both vehemently condemn the actions of Breivik. But despite this obvious fact the accusations from the extreme left continue with unabated force, which clearly shows that there are other motivations behind these vile accusations than unearthing the truth.

So let’s take a step back and look at it from a more logical perspective. The fact of the matter is that these vile accusations by the extreme left have never been subjected to any proper scientific analysis to ascertain whether they carry any clout or not. The truth is that these accusations were first made by a handful of individuals on the left with a very clear anti-conservative agenda the minute it became clear that the perpetrator was a right-wing non-Muslim. The accusations have since been repeated incessantly and they have eventually been accepted as the truth. And the media in Norway have played a vital part in helping cement these claims. These accusations are also in stark contrast to the normal admonishing by the extreme left after Islamic terrorist attacks in which people are being cautioned not to stigmatise all Muslims as a result of the evil deeds of a fanatical minority, something which I’ve highlighted in previous essays.

So let’s put these accusations under the microscope and examine them a little more closely. One thing that the media in Norway deliberately have chosen not to point out is that none of the individuals who instigated these accusations have ever met Breivik. The media have also failed to point out that none of these instigators have had the opportunity to conduct a thorough psychiatric evaluation of Breivik, nor that they have the necessary expertise or credentials in making any diagnosis of the terrorist. But even so their assertions that Breivik was influenced by Fjordman and Mr. Rustad go unchallenged by the media. The fact of the matter is that the court-appointed psychiatrists who were given the task of examining Breivik and who eventually concluded that he was insane have refrained from making any such claims. If the psychiatrists who examined Breivik aren’t subscribing to these accusations then why do the media persist in printing them? The truth is that no one can be held accountable for the actions of a mentally deranged individual. A person who is insane is by definition incapable of making rational decisions, hence no one can be held accountable for his lack of such.

If these left wing agitators were sincere, and had a genuine desire to uncover Breivik’s true motivations for carrying out the atrocities, they would be better off studying his online manifesto, in which he describes in great detail the reasoning behind his actions. In the manifesto Breivik states that he has been compelled to act as a result of Western governments’ suicidal immigration and appeasement policies, which he believes will cause the end of Western Civilisation. No one in their right mind can claim that it was Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who opened up the European borders. That responsibility lies solely on the shoulders of various European politicians and bureaucrats. I’ll admit that I haven’t read the entire manifesto, but I’m pretty confident that Breivik doesn’t mention that it was Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who urged him to do what he did.

Another thing worth keeping in mind is that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad write almost entirely about things that they read about in the media. When Fjordman writes about a non-western rape epidemic in Oslo it’s because the media in Norway have brought it to his attention. Fjordman only responds to the media’s coverage of these events. And when Fjordman writes about street robberies and other acts of violence perpetrated by non-western immigrants it’s because the media in Norway have brought it to his attention. And when Fjordman writes about the undemocratic shenanigans of the Muslim community it’s because the media initially decided to shed some light on it. And last but not least when Fjordman writes about the very real possibility that Norwegians could end up as a minority in their own country it’s because the Norwegian media has presented documentation and statistics that support such a scenario.

Anyone who has read Fjordman’s and Mr. Rustad’s essays regarding Scandinavia will quickly discover that they base their writings on newspaper accounts from Norway, Sweden and Denmark. The media claim that the duo helped create Breivik, but a more accurate claim would be that the media heavily influenced the work of both Fjordman and Mr. Rustad, and all the other individuals who write about these issues for that matter. Why? Because they (Fjordman and Mr . Rustad) simply react to the news presented to them by the media. If the media chose not to write about immigrant crime, Muslim demographic trends and the countless of stories detailing the anti-democratic mindset of large portions of the Muslim community it’s highly unlikely that there would be bloggers covering these issues at all.

And are the Norwegian media really trying to convince us that they didn’t expect that people would get agitated and form a negative view of non-western immigrants when they the media keep writing on a daily basis about how non-western immigrants engage in the gang rape of Norwegian women, or describe in vivid detail how these immigrants commit violence against ethnic Norwegians? And did the media seriously expect that people wouldn’t get agitated when the media publish articles in which Muslims claim that they will eventually seize control in Norway and introduce Islamic Sharia laws?

If one were to follow the logic of the media, which claim that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad were somehow responsible for brainwashing Breivik into carrying out these atrocities by their writings, one would then also naturally have to deflect the majority of the responsibility back onto the media in Norway, because they were the ones who initially influenced Fjordman and Mr. Rustad. If we were to follow the logic of these leftwing agitators the only reasonable deduction would be that the media were the ones who initially created an ‘environment’ where ‘hatred’ towards non-western immigrants, and Muslims in particular, was allowed to flourish as a result of their thousands of articles ‘depicting’ these individuals in a ‘bad’ light over the last few decades. Or maybe we should just accept that the media through their articles regarding the matter of immigrant crime are only depicting the reality in multicultural Norway? And perhaps we should also accept that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad are only engaging in the act of commenting on this new reality?

Are the media in Norway seriously trying to convince us that they have no culpability in influencing Breivik to commit these crimes by publishing critical articles about non-western immigrants, but that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who have simply been linking to the newspaper articles published by the same media somehow are? That is logical fallacy, and it simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. If they keep insisting on trying to pin the blame on Fjordman and Mr. Rustad then they have to stand up and accept equal responsibility, which of course they will never do.

In my opinion one of the reasons why the media in Norway is targeting Fjordman in particular is because they’re envious of his international success. Fjordman has gained considerable international recognition for his work. His articles have been read by millions of people around the globe, and that is something that the journalists in Norway who ridicule him will never be able to achieve. In fact most of them are third rate reporters incapable of producing high quality journalistic work. The majority are only capable of writing frivolous sensationalism, and they simply act as mouthpieces for the political establishment. They know it, and that’s why they keep attacking Fjordman. In their mind if they can’t enjoy the same success that Fjordman has enjoyed then he shouldn’t be able to enjoy it either. It was a big thorn in their side that ever since Fjordman started blogging in 2005, they were unable to uncover his true identity. If they had they would have been able to silence him a lot sooner by publicly slandering him an intimidating him to remain silent. When Fjordman finally revealed his identity the media finally got their opportunity, and they have been busy slandering him ever since. The final nail in the coffin would be for him to be convicted in a court of law for being an ‘accomplice’ of Breivik. Only then would they be able to rest.

Another point that I want to quickly touch upon is Breivik himself. It is of a more hypothetical nature, and I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, but it is a thought that has crossed my mind, and that I haven’t heard anyone else discussing it. My hypothesis is this: what if Breivik is only pretending to be insane in order to avoid doing time in prison? It is common knowledge that the Norwegian prison system has a huge number of non-Western inmates. For someone like Breivik, who clearly despises non-Westerners, it would be a cruel punishment to have to live the rest of his life alongside such individuals. Would the possibility of being placed in a psychiatric ward where the majority of the patients are of Norwegian stock be a more tempting alternative for him? And would it with time be easier for Breivik to escape from a psychiatric unit than from a maximum security prison?

Would Breivik be capable of fooling the psychiatrists into believing that he is mentally unstable? I believe that he could. Breivik has shown that he is very capable of detailed planning and that he has the patience required for meticulous research. Who’s to say that he hasn’t planned for this scenario all along? I would imagine that anyone who has studied a textbook dealing with basic psychiatry would be able to recognise the various symptoms of mental illnesses. Once again, I don’t know if there is any basis for making such claims, but it’s an interesting theory nonetheless.

It’s also common knowledge at least in Norway that is, that Norwegian authorities in the past have silenced individuals who they have perceived to be enemies by having them diagnosed as mentally unstable and locking them up in psychiatric wards. For anyone who wants to learn more about it, I would suggest that they do some online research on the Arnold Juklerød case.