Monday, January 02, 2012

An Open Letter to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg

In his New Year’s speech, the prime minister of Norway made a thinly-veiled (and antagonistic) reference to Fjordman. Below is Fjordman’s response.

Fjordman

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg heads a three-party left-wing coalition government. In his prestigious New Year’s speech that was delivered on national TV over several channels on January 1, 2012, the prime minister said many fine things. He also stated the following:

“The Internet at its worst is when totalitarian seducers are allowed to remain unchallenged in dark corners of the Net. We have to face this with resolve. We shall drive them out with the light of knowledge. Voicing opposition to extremism is taking responsibility for the future.”
He didn’t openly call for censorship as such, but he promoted the term ytringsansvar, which could be translated as “speech responsibility”, or “responsible speech”. Critical observers might reasonably claim that this neologism is frequently used as a code word for Multicultural censorship of anything related to the ongoing mass immigration. The prime minister advocated that people should become more active digital watchdogs and simply say “No, you are wrong” when confronted with extreme opinions.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the proposition that we should confront extremist opinions when we encounter them, but who determines what is to be considered “extreme”? For instance, I maintain that the immigration policies promoted by virtually all Western government today would be considered fairly extreme from a long historical perspective. Is it not an “extreme” outcome when the native population of European countries will, with mathematical certainty, be reduced to a minority in their own countries within a few decades, if present trends continue?

In response to Prime Minister Stoltenberg, who promotes speech responsibility, writer Christian Skaug has introduced the term lytteansvar, that is, a “responsibility to listen”. The Western ruling classes suffer from a listening deficit, especially when it comes to their immigration policies. They don’t properly listen or take into account the wishes of their own people in this regard.

This suppression could potentially lead to serious tensions in the future if left unchecked for much longer. A rising number of Europeans are asking themselves why Western leaders are so busy listening to the “legitimate grievances” of Muslims or other alien peoples, but rarely to the legitimate complaints and concerns of their own people, who increasingly feel like aliens in their own cities.

I understand all too well that some people in the mass media and elsewhere believe that Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s New Year’s speech was a thinly veiled attack on dissident writers who are critical of his government’s immigration policies, with myself prominent among those critics. This idea is not entirely without basis. This speech was in many ways as far as a sitting Prime Minister can go in attacking a specific private citizen without actually naming his name. Party secretary Raymond Johansen of the Labor Party — the prime minister’s party — has attacked me by name several times, however. He has even labeled me a “dangerous extremist”.

I am not sure whether Mr. Stoltenberg truly understands what “totalitarian” means. Was he by any chance referring to some of the radical Islamic organizations his government has shown willingness to cooperate with?

Was he thinking of the fact that his own government in March 2007 became the first in the entire Western world — beating even reliably pro-Islamic Sweden — to accept a government led by the terrorist organization Hamas?

Is he aware of the fact that Hamas in is arguably more totalitarian than the Communists or the Nazis were in Europe?

One also has to point out that except for Islam and Islamic pressures, by far the most powerful and dangerous source of totalitarian impulses on the European continent today is the European Union. The EU has for most practical purposes virtually abolished democratic accountability from the Black Sea to the North Sea, leaving in place an empty shell of parliaments that are nearly devoid of real power to serve as a democratic fig leaf for the autocratic oligarchs.

As I told a journalist from NRK Radio, I am neither totalitarian nor a seducer, and have spent years of my life fighting against Islamic extremism. I am a great supporter of the light of knowledge, and can document all of my claims.

For example, no journalist has ever managed to show that any of the networks my friend Bat Ye’or writes about in her book about Eurabia do not exist. EU authorities themselves state in official documents that are available on the Internet in English and other languages that the EU is to be gradually enlarged to encompass Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. The material also includes the so-called “four freedoms”, among them the free movement of people across borders. This aim is stated quite explicitly in their long-term plans. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is not even a theory. It is a fact.

Moreover, I stand by my claim that Islam cannot be reformed, not if reformation means a form of religion that can accept secular law and live in peace on equal terms with non-Muslims. If “reformation” is taken to imply a return to the early days of the original believers, as Luther and Calvin thought of it during the Protestant Reformation in Europe, then we have arguably already had a “Muslim Martin Luther.” His name was Osama bin Laden. He was a violent Jihadist because violent Jihad was what Mohammed and his followers both preached and practiced.

I will be more than happy to debate such issues with Mr. Stoltenberg. I am not sure if I understand what he refers to when he speaks of the supposed “dark corners of the Internet”. As Fjordman, before my name became publicly known, I used to say that I had a hidden identity, but not a hidden agenda. Anybody with access to a search engine, which means billions of people worldwide, can easily find out what I think about issues from German wheat beers to astrophysics and superstring theory to sharia law. My essays are brightly-lit, and they are spread across the Internet on different websites. They are not hidden away.

If people believe we have dark and dangerous opinions, then they are welcome to challenge these at Gates of Vienna or the other nasty “Islamophobic” websites where I publish on a regular basis.


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

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

police director warns about the islamic danger

dhimmi politician calls him racist


alertadigital.com/2012/01/01/el-psoe-acusa-al-nuevo-director-de-la-policia-de-ultrajar-a-los-musulmanes-por-decir-que-su-modelo-de-vida-a-veces-es-incompatible-con-el-nuestro/

Anonymous said...

*
dhimmi politician
or
alien?

Anonymous said...

some «elite» is attacking the internet on the state sponsored tv channel in my country.

Anonymous said...

The prime minister advocated that people should become more active digital watchdogs and simply say “No, you are wrong” when confronted with extreme opinions.

are they going to be paid? it's a waste of tax money!

Kefalotyri said...

@Fjordman

When you are over the target, expect to take flak.

So take heart. You are not alone. We are here listening and understanding more day by day.

Happy new year.

Vortac said...

Of course, we have already seen that the "light of knowledge" is best spread via police, secret services and (in final stage) reeducation camps. See, schools and universities are of little use in this case - in fact they will probably get you into the reeducation camp even sooner.

babs said...

I assume Ms. Ye'Or still lives in Europe. Does she require security protection?

I think the time is neigh that Fjordman gets a protection detail or, moves out of Norway to the US.

Protect your life and come to the US and work for a think tank Fjordman... The situation is now dangerous and out of control.

jeppo said...

EU authorities themselves state in official documents that are available on the Internet in English and other languages that the EU is to be gradually enlarged to encompass Muslim North Africa and the Middle East.

Yeah, but it's never going to happen. It takes only one member state to veto any EU expansion, so even if toadies like David Cameron actively push for Turkish EU membership, at least one of the other 26 leaders will step up and say "nein".

Anne said...

At the rate things are going now, nobody will want to join the EU in the future.

Anonymous said...

"Is it not an “extreme” outcome when the native population of European countries will, with mathematical certainty, be reduced to a minority in their own countries within a few decades, if present trends continue?"

This is so important. Please continue to remind ordinary Europeans that they DO have cultures worth saving. They are part of an ethnic groups that are being deliberately diluted, and the deliberate dilution of native European ethnic groups is genocide according to the UN definition of genocide.

Anonymous said...

Here in New Zealand I contacted our most prominent Islamic scholar (now retired) for the purposes of completing my Masters on Dialogue in Islam and was forwarded a number of his articles. A lovely chap & very helpful, he is no more a rabid fundamentalist "right-winger" than any of the West's University lecturers but he publicly stated that the Ayotollah Khomeini is the modern counterpart of Martin Luther.

Obvious, even to an institutional, left-leaning member of the Academy. Yet I suppose this amounts to hate-speech now too? What a mess we have made for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Denial of debate is the one true hallmark of the autocrat, the fascist, the totalitarian and the hysterical imbecile that's politically positioned himself to act as the persecutor without need of the facts. It is the permanent denial of debate masquerading as an endless debate of character to distract in the realm of public opinion. The focus is always on Fjordman's character because that distracts from the actual debate at hand that is being permanently denied. In Salem, Mass. at the time of the Witch Trials, it was outside the realm of acceptable discourse to say "Hey everybody, there's no such thing as a witch." The true crime of the Witch Trials was that people either didn't speak up or they were denied when they spoke up in contradiction to accepted narratives. Just as now it's "outside the realm of acceptable discourse" to say "Hey, Fjordman's got a point here. Let's acknowledge the truth in his positions." It's the Salem Witch Trials all over again. No, the earth is flat, to the stake with you, etc. The caliber of the perversity is the same. RoR

Chiu said...

It is important to call attention to efforts by the 'authorities' to shut down civil discourse they do not like. But what is more important is to commit to continue speaking no matter what the cost. If they ever believe that laws shutting down the debate will actually work, then they will pass them no matter what protests you make beforehand.

It is defiance of those regulations they have already passed which shows the futility of trying to shut down the debate. Promise yourself this, that you will not shrink from standing against evil even when your life is on the line. Because evil will not shrink from threatening your life if that ensures your compliance.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

"No you are wrong" is about as far as the establishment is prepared to go in arguing with those of us that oppose its(multicultural) world view. I have yet to see a *factual* argument in favour of multiculturalism - instead all that the establishment has is sentiment and wishful thinking (and censorship). Facts is facts! The truth will out - isn't that always the case?

Whiskey said...

The PM is scared. Very scared. Why else "punch downwards" at ... a blogger.

Really? It would be like Obama complaining about ... Ace of Spades or Steve Sailer.

I think Glen Reynolds wrote about this ... totalitarian states (Norway no exception) suppress real opinions and then when weak, suffer "preference collapse" as true opinion becomes known. See Egypt, Libya, many places in China.

The PM is scared. When the EU collapses, and China bids up food prices even higher, no one will want to die for PC and multiculturalism, neither will they want to be poor and starve for it (so Muslims coming as conquerors can have more). The easiest solution in hard times is to kick out the outsiders -- Muslims.

This is elementary and someone on the Left claiming a national mantle will obviously claim it. Hence the fear and making an example of Fjordman. That's extraordinary.

Punching down.

Anonymous said...


official documents that are available on the Internet in English...


One of the more interesting of these documents, and also one of the spookier, is the report by the High-Level Advisory Group established by Romano Prodi back in 2002.

This report,
Dialogue between People and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area, describes in detail the motives of the elite, why they want to fusion EU and their southern arab neighbour countries.

The report was delivered to Prodi in October 2003. IIRC many of the recommendations were implemented as part of the European Security Strategy, ESS, adapted two months later.

Buddy.

Anonymous said...

"...the terrorist organisation Hamas..."

Well, that organisation was helped into power by Israels Mossad. The organisation whos motto is; "Through deception, make war".

This is the way of Hegel and thus Hegelian Dialectic. The classic way of forcing change by the western elites.

By arresting moderate Palestinian leaders and releasing the Hamas leader this fell into movement, and the Hamas grew strong and came into power.

Thus one have an enemy, who one can fight a war against. And through war, fear and outer threats one holds the people open for suggestions from the leadership. Again, Hegel.

Or The Report From Iron Mountain which is very real and not a hoax, which concludes that war is needed to keep the elites society model intact. Without war and conflicts, the system will collaps.

And in this context, mass immigration also shines in a new perspective. It is a designed conflict from which change in policy can be made at a later stage.

Think about it.