Thursday, August 11, 2011

The Breivik Portfolio, Part One: The American Connection

Update: A mistyped date has been corrected. Thank you, jon.

U.S. Embassy, Oslo

It has now been three weeks since Anders Behring Breivik carried out his atrocities in downtown Oslo and on the island of Utøya. In the interim millions of words have been written about the psychopathic killer and his manifesto, but surprisingly little has emerged about his possible accomplices and co-conspirators.

There were some tantalizing hints in his manifesto about other “cells” with which he claimed to be connected. There was an initial report — hastily withdrawn — that the owner of a Polish chemical company had been arrested for supplying Mr. Breivik with some of the components for his bombs. Articles appeared in the Russian press describing the killer’s paramilitary training at a secret camp in Belarus (more on this in later posts).

The media, however, obviously prefer a loner who planned and carried out the attacks entirely on his own. If any accomplices were to emerge, they might well fail to fit the “right-wing Christian extremist” narrative into which Western governments and the press have shoehorned the incident. Given that virtually all the experts on building fertilizer bombs are found in groups like Al Qaeda, a wider conspiracy could be expected to have a non-zero Mohammed Coefficient — so who would want to go there?

Anders Behring Breivik may have executed his crime on his own, or he may have had help. If his actions were part of a larger plot, it might indeed have been a right-wing nationalist conspiracy of like-minded individuals who possessed the same lack of moral compunction. Or it could have been a “false-flag” operation, designed to demoralize and discredit everyone who resists the Islamization of the West, tarring us all with the “violent hater” brush.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter, because the effect on our movement is the same. Western governments and the media have now joined hands in a concerted effort to take down the Counterjihad.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

If Anders Behring Breivik acted alone, or if he simply worked in company with one or more co-conspirators who shared his opinions and his psychopathology, this would be a boring essay, and could be ended right here.

So, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume not only that he had accomplices, but that he was in fact a “weaponized psychopath” who was discovered, cultivated, and trained by an as-yet unidentified organization for the express purpose of discrediting anti-jihad activists and politicians, and halting any effective resistance to the Islamization of Europe.

Such an operation seems highly unlikely, and Mr. Breivik is probably exactly what he seems to be. However, there are still loose ends to the case — tantalizing hints of outside complicity, and some intriguing coincidences.

Mr. Breivik’s 1500-page English-language manifesto has been analyzed in great detail. Its references have been identified and its sources enumerated. But what about the language itself? Much of the text was borrowed or plagiarized from other sources, but there was also extensive original writing. What can we tell from the spelling, vocabulary, syntax, and style of this enormous work?

After six years of editing prose for publication, I have learned to spot the signs of English written by non-native speakers. Sometimes the native language (or language group) of the writer can be identified by certain characteristic mistakes.

Mr. Breivik was clearly not a native speaker of English. On page 1211 of his manifesto he wrote:

The fall, or more specifically the partition, of the US is imminent and will occur within 2025 at the earliest. The primary reason for this implosion is that the US won the economical cold war but lost the cultural cold war due to weak leadership. [emphasis added]

The misuse of prepositions — which are often the parts of speech that are most difficult to master in a foreign language — is a sign of a non-native speaker. The fact that the author wrote “within” instead of “during” or “in” is a sign that English is not his first language. Furthermore, the use of “economical” instead of “economic” is a characteristic of Scandinavian writers — I often have to correct the same misuse of the word when editing translations by Danes, Swedes, or Norwegians.

Strangely enough, the lengthy introduction to the manifesto is written in more fluent English, and seems generally indistinguishable from the prose of a native speaker. The writing is not up to professional standards, but much of it reads as if it were written by someone who had English as his first language.

And, significantly, it is American English. I did some word searches in the document on standard American spellings (e.g. “-ization”, “color”, “labeled”) and found Americanisms to be predominant. Some of those are undoubtedly derived from the quoted material, but some are also in the author’s own prose. The manifesto is mostly written in American English.

Strangely enough, the same was not true back in 2008, when Anders Behring Breivik left a couple of comments here at Gates of Vienna. Not only did his prose show characteristics indicating that it was written by a non-native speaker, it also used British spellings.

British spellings are the norm for Scandinavians who write in English. The vast majority of them learn British English in school, speak with a British accent (under their Scandinavian one), and use British spellings. In 2008 Anders Breivik was writing the sort of prose I would expect from a Norwegian with a decent command of British English.

Yet by July 2011, he was writing large swaths of text in fluent American English.

What’s going on here?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

So much for linguistic analysis. What about the content of the manifesto?

A striking feature of Mr. Breivik’s preferred reading is that so much of it was American. If you omit the references to Fjordman and, the sources for what he wrote are predominantly American or Canadian — Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Mark Steyn, and a number of others. And not all his favorite writers are internationally famous. He cites Rod Dreher and Frank Gaffney, for example — two writers who are familiar to most American conservatives, yet would be all but unknown to most Europeans.

It’s very strange that a Norwegian nationalist who had so little regard for the United States would find much of his inspiration from American authors.

Other parts of American culture also dominate his writings — movies, television programs, video games, and so on. Was this just the working out of his own natural interests? Or did something else lead him to all that American material?

Despite its focus on the rescue of Western Europe, much of Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto reads as if it were written by an American for an American audience.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Before we delve any further into the Americanization of Anders Behring Breivik, let’s detour into a timeline of his internet activity. Based on the available evidence, Mr. Breivik became active on the internet no later than 2007. Most of his online postings, however, were in 2009 and 2010.

The only place he commented on a regular basis for an extended period of time was, which translated his entire corpus of comments into English (of varying quality) just after July 22. The archive is posted here.

There were some seventy-five comments made by Anders Behring Breivik at, using the alias “Anders B”. They are now disconnected from the articles they originally accompanied, for technical reasons: revamped its entire system on November 24, 2010. Comments before that date still exist, but cannot easily be connected to the articles they were originally assigned to. described Mr. Breivik’s online activities here, noting that he seems to have systematically exaggerated his abilities and connections, and that they saw no meaningful reason to be in touch with him. They had but a single direct email from him.

The last of his comments was entered on Oct. 29th, 2010.

Some commentators have speculated that Mr. Breivik may have become dissatisfied with online Counterjihad forums, due to their unwillingness to share his radical views about what needed to be done. For that reason, the theory goes, he abandoned his online activity as he prepared his deadly plans for Oslo.

But could there have been another reason for his sudden departure from the internet forums?

By coincidence, on November 3, 2010, just five days after the killer’s last comment at, the Norwegian broadcaster TV2 aired an exposé of a decade-long surveillance operation, the Surveillance Detection Unit (SDU) conducted by the American embassy in Oslo:

TV2 reported on its nightly national newscast Wednesday that the US Embassy, “in deepest secrecy,” built up a surveillance unit in Oslo over the past decade that systematically has kept hundreds of Norwegians under surveillance. Many of the Norwegians ultimately have unwittingly landed in a US terror register and likely will remain there for 25 years.

The embassy’s organization, called “Surveillance Detection Unit,” reportedly was set up in the spring of 2000 and operated from the sixth floor of the office building known as Handelsbygningen at Solli Plass, just a few hundred meters up the street from the embassy’s location on Henrik Ibsens Gate. After TV2 started asking questions, the unit reportedly was moved to a new, secret location where it remains in operation.

The unit reportedly has employed as many as 20 persons including retired Norwegian police and former military and intelligence experts. TV2 said it had identified around seven of the Norwegians working for the Americans.


Bjørn Erik Thon, head of the Norwegian agency that regulates surveillance in Norway (Datatilsynet), told TV2 that he’d never seen anything like the embassy-run operation in Norway. “I think it’s very serious that something like this can be conducted on Norwegian territory and that it’s Norwegian citizens carrying out the work,” Thon said.

The revelations caused a tremendous scandal in Norway that continued for several months. Current and past political leaders insisted that the embassy had never informed them about SDU, yet the United States maintained that it had consulted with the Norwegian authorities over the surveillance. The former police officers and intelligence agents employed by the embassy were prevented from talking to Norwegian officials by a confidentiality agreement signed as a condition of their employment.

The following week the parliamentary justice committee called for an investigation into the SDU. Under extreme pressure, the embassy said it had informed a police chief about what it was doing, but it was not clear which chief was referred to, and all denied having been so informed. Most importantly, the Norwegian security police (PST) said they had known nothing about the surveillance.

On November 28, a batch of WikiLeaks cables from the American embassy in Oslo was released, including some non-detailed references to the SDU program. The publicity around the WikiLeaks revelations helped keep the scandal in the headlines well into December. The American ambassador insisted that what had been done was “standard procedure”, and should continue. At the same time, he continued his refusal to allow his Norwegian employees to discuss the case with investigators.

Much later the embassy was said to have waived their right to prevent the employees from testifying. The investigation continued into this year, but the furor around it subsided.

Finally, many months later, the investigation was quietly dropped:

The case of closet surveillance by the American Embassy in Oslo seems to have been quietly dropped almost a year following the WikiLeaks revelations.

Since the announcement of the spying scandal nothing more appears to have happened.


Norway’s Prosecuting Authority now says the matter has been dropped.

The investigation was abandoned on July 30th, 2011 — barely a week after the killings in Oslo and on Utøya.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Although none of the articles about SDU mentions the CIA, it’s all but certain that CIA employees stationed at the embassy were responsible for the surveillance. It was acknowledged that agents were sometimes armed, which was not the normal procedure for embassy personnel, and many people assumed that there was more going on than just routine surveillance to ensure the safety of the embassy.

Some of the indications:

  • The unit had more people than usual.
  • They were focused on counter-terrorism.
  • There were other intelligence services involved.
  • They went to rallies and took photos.
  • They were pressuring Norway for lists of all terrorists, and Norway had not been cooperating.

Looking at it from one angle, this was normal behavior — the CIA was trying to do its job. But were they were also running some other type of operation?

If they weren’t, then shouldn’t the Norwegians ask them why they didn’t pick up on Anders Breivik? After all, he was a right-winger who communicated extensively in the English language. Shouldn’t the CIA’s surveillance have detected him?

These are the dots, but there is no clear connection among them — several coincidences, some fascinating possibilities, but no hard data. We are left with hypothesis and conjecture.

From the very beginning, Anders Behring Breivik and his manifesto seemed too good to be true, from the perspective of anyone who wished to destroy the Counterjihad movement. His “weaponization” was aligned exactly with current politically correct conditions, guaranteeing a storm that would do maximum damage to those who oppose Islamization.

There’s no way to determine how much of the “original” writings in the manifesto were written by Mr. Breivik himself. All we know is that for some reason his document focused on American sources, seemed to overemphasize American opinions and culture, and was written in an American style. When the manifesto is analyzed objectively, the American connection seems obvious.

Even so, it is inconceivable that the CIA (or the Norwegian intelligence services) would ever deliberately unleash a car bomber on downtown Oslo as a form of political manipulation. They are not so cynical and ruthless as to engineer that sort of operation.

However, there are other possible players, and other possible agendas. Further speculation on this topic will be left for later posts in this series.


Anonymous said...

Im looking forward to the further posts. Whatever did happen, its not the fault of the counterjihad. You cant be blamed for reporting the news. You dont make the news you just report it. Does the Left think that some world events are off limits for discussion? Ludicrous!!

Papa Whiskey said...

The late great Jeff Cooper, commenting on the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, noted that "If you find a turtle on top of a fence post, it's a pretty safe bet that he didn't get there by himself."

I once wrote a column for my paper reflecting on some wildly improbable conspiracy scenarios that actually proved to be true. For example:

* The Tuskegee Experiment. In 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service recruited a group of black men who had gotten syphilis for a study to monitor the progress of the disease. The government continued to study their affliction even after it became clear that penicillin was the "magic bullet" for syphilis. The study continued until 1972, when a whistleblower revealed it to the public and an outcry arose.

* CIA involvement in the Southeast Asian heroin trade. In the late 60s and early 70s, the CIA's proprietary airline, Air America, flew many missions in support of the Royal Lao Army, occasionally transporting opium and heroin grown in Laos and processed by personnel of said army. This contributed to the epidemic of skag addicition among American GIs in Vietnam at that time. The details may be found in "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia," by Alfred McCoy.

* LSD experiments on unwitting American GIS. In the 1950s, the CIA undertook a secret program called MKULTRA, which involved slipping acid to unsuspecting military personnel under the pretext of testing chemical-resistant clothing. The drug was also tested on the agency's own employees, one of whom jumped to his death out of a fifth-story window. His family was allowed to think it was a garden-variety suicide. The truth didn't come out until the Rockefeller Commission investigation of 1975.

The notion of Breivik as an unwitting agent provocateur for the USG is pretty far-fetched -- almost as far-fetched as the three cases cited above.

Call Me Mom said...

I must admit, my first thoughts were along the lines of "What possible business does the US have doing surveillance on Norweigian citizens? Then the denial kicked in and started making excuses for such a political faux pas.Suffice it to say that I am not satisfied with the situation or the possible explanations. Doing their job or not, Norway is a sovereign nation and the government of Norway has a right to be informed of such activities by an ally.

On another topic, you said:"Even so, it is inconceivable that the CIA (or the Norwegian intelligence services) would ever deliberately unleash a car bomber on downtown Oslo as a form of political manipulation. They are not so cynical and ruthless as to engineer that sort of operation. "

I should think that by now, doing what you do and reporting what you report, I wouldn't have to remind you that the heart of man is desparately wicked. Suffice it to say that I was granted many interesting and challenging opportunities to avoid unpleasantness during my lifetime, much of it with full knowledge and intent to inflict harm. I do not have the faith that you so admirably display in that comment. Kudos to you, sir. May it prove to be so.

Cyril Lucar said...

There is actually some pretty standard ways to determine whether Anders wrote the manifesto or not, even to divide up the manifesto into Anders and non-Anders units. This is often done in critical studies of ancient texts and it involves pairing statistical analysis with linguistic tools. Since there are putative control samples and some demonstrably non-Anders material in the manifesto, there's a lot of information to glean, if someone took the time.

Your observations are tantalizing.

ThePatriarchate of Constantinople

jon said...

The last of his comments was entered on Oct. 29th, 2011.

Date should be 2010?

Anonymous said...

"Strangely enough, the lengthy introduction to the manifesto is written in more fluent English, and seems generally indistinguishable from the prose of a native speaker. "

Less than a week after the Breivik incident, I had the chance to speak to a Norwegian journalist from TV2 who was investigating Breivik. He asserted that the diary portion of Breivik's compendium was fluent. I disagreed, and said that it was the introductory material that was markedly fluent, in fact of native quality - the diary sections were halting and far less fluent (this much was obvious to me from even a cursory reading of the compendium). If the fluency had been reversed, then one might accede that his fluency increased over the years it supposedly took him to compose the compendium.

Considering that TV2 were supposedly interested in finding out if Breivik was working with others (they'd already spoken to Fjordman by the time I spoke to them), it is strange that they have not pursued the linguistic discrepancy in the compendium.

I have since edited my version of the compendium to remove all the material that is a call to arms, and deleted the original. Interestingly, the compendium was 50% analysis, 50% incitement. I cut it at page 745. said...

Congratulations for the article and for the battle that you continue to fight. There is another very important point to enforce your arguments... the pdf file of the "manifesto" was created AFTER Breiviks arrest!!
The article is in Greek but focus at the image.
I apologize for the long url.

We send you our respect.

Sagunto said...

From the article:

"In 2008 Anders Breivik was writing the sort of prose I would expect from a Norwegian with a decent command of British English.

Yet by July 2011, he was writing large swaths of text in fluent American English.

What’s going on here?"

In order to check, I extracted the last part from this compendium, the part that consists of his "diary" and the bizarre "Q and A" section. This corresponds with pages 1349 - 1472 (his "last entry").

Then I used the Baron's method and ran four searches: color/colour ; ization/isation.

Results (number of hits, not counting things like "tricolore" and "Colorado", but including "coloured", of corse ;-)

Color = 8
Colour = 5

-ization = 19 (1 quote)
-isation = 85

Marked difference in this most personal, i.e. least plagiarized(-sed), part of the manifesto: "islamization" vs. "islamisation".
The former, US version, appears 0 times, while the latter, English version, appears 28 times.

At your service and, as always,
Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this enlightening text and for your enlightening work. I actually wait for more analysis (of yours) about the whole fact, because I really miss the true meaning of the thing: I'm observing these days an ethnical (or ethnic?) radicalization within (so to call them) Non western communities, against the West and (litteraly said) Westerners [notably: Western Christians (which means: the radicalization is not against Christians or Christianity, but against "Western" xy)]. Now: it seems that is not Politics that rules Economy (money), but that it is Economy (money) that rules Politics; in your text you mention Breivik as stating "... economically won the Cold War, but not culturally ...". Since Culture somehow belongs to Politics (and has to do with the Policies of a Country), I suppose either one wins (or won) a/the (Cold) War [be it a phisical War, a sword fight, or an intellectual War, a word fight], both economically and culturally, or one loses (lost) it. All in all, I think/suppose we are still stuck in the same matters existing during World War II, and during post World War II (during the Cold War). The Counterjihad Movement analyses therefore only a small facet of the whole matter, and yes, problem [this situation of today really is a human problem, which might be humanistically solved. Let's see if Economy will support Humanism, or not ("Here" Humanism belongs to Politics).] Hope this Non british, Non american comment was understandable, and please, if someone finds it somehow disturbing or so, tell me! So there is no need for different kind of ... spies, agents, secret services, whatever ... to waste their time (...): problems [questions] (in case there are some) can be solved [answered] in a more transparent way. And maybe this (Transparency) is the only way to solve problems [and to answer questions] (in case there are some). Kindest regards.

Sagunto said...

Btw, what "introduction" are we talking about? The first nine pages of the document, or the "Introduction to the compendium - 2083", starting at page 11?

If the section about political correctness (as cultural Marxism) is the subject under study, then all speculation about Breivik's linguistic development can be put to rest, since all of this is plagiarized from several native speaking authors. None of the material about cultural Marxism, the Frankfurter Schule, and so on, is written by Breivik himself.

The first nine pages entail some errors typical for reasonably accomplished, but still, non-native speakers.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Martin K said...

As a norwegian relatively a-political person, may I say one thing? Fjordman did one inexcusable error. When he "gave himself up" to the police, he tried to hide his laptop in a storage locker. That turned the whole people against him, when the issue is such a large massacre of young ones and children, you dont. freaking. hinder. the. police. Seriously, thats when you fully cooperate with the powers that be and allow them full acess.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stg58/Animal Mother said...


I totally agree with the giveaways in English compositions written by non native speakers. I translate a fair amount of Spanish documents into English, and because of that, I notice when I am reading something in English that was written by a spanish speaker. The non fluent English speaker will sometimes substitute the word "win" for "earn", since the spanish word for "win" and "earn" is the same, ganar.

They will also make similar mistakes with prepositions as Scandinavians do.

Tantalizing, indeed.

Anonymous said...

I am a non-native speaker who frequently comments on various blogs.

Inconsistent spelling and vocabulary is likely just a result of him using different browsers and word processors at different times and flipping back and forth between language settings. My favorite online dictionary provides both english and american spelling and I use whatever sounds and looks more aesthetically pleasing to me.

My own style significantly improved with practice. It depends on how much time and effort I put into editing my comments. I am frequently aware that a particular phrasing is somewhat clumsy and "unnatural". Google is a handy tool to find out, but sometimes I just let it go.

The head-start of mediocre Oxford English I learned at school quickly faded away as I started to consume the overwhelming and much more interesting cultural and intellectual output of the US.
Norway doesn't do overdubbing of Hollywood movies btw.

Breivik didn't do any primary research. The discourse of Islam and multiculturalism is, as I understand it, very limited in Sweden and Norway. He is a loner, who doesn't care much about day-to-day politics and he wanted to address the entire west with his manifesto. He doesn't appear to be well versed in languages in addition to English.
It is therefore not surprising at all that he largely influenced by american writers whose writings were available to him.

To conclude, I don't see anything suspicious in either linguistic inconsistencies or the significant admixture of american culture and politics in Breivik's manifesto.

Richard said...

"Given that virtually all the experts on building fertilizer bombs are found in groups like Al Qaeda...."

Like Timothy McVeigh? How can you possibly say "ALL the experts"? All you need to know about making a fertilizer bomb can be found on the Internet, by the way.

Baron Bodissey said...

Richard --

Timothy McVeigh required the help of an Iraqi terrorist in order to make his fertilizer bomb. This is extensively documented in The Third Terrorist.

Several people who know much more than I do on such topics have told me that the building of a powerful fertilizer bomb is very unlikely to occur without the help of someone from a Muslim terrorist network, which is where the real experts may be found.

Zenster said...

The American ambassador insisted that what had been done [SDU] was “standard procedure”, and should continue.

● They were pressuring Norway for lists of all terrorists, and Norway had not been cooperating.
[emphasis added]

Considering that Norway continues to harbor known terrorist Mullah Krekar (AKA: Fateh Najmeddin Faraj or Abu Sayyid Qutb), monitoring such activities within Norway is well within the USA's rights.

Call Me Mom: Doing their job or not, Norway is a sovereign nation and the government of Norway has a right to be informed of such activities by an ally.

Ummmmm … no.

If a country's intelligence community is so derelict, as Norway's clearly seems to be, in its duty to curb international terrorism, then they become a clear and present danger to other Western nations.

We have already seen the tremendous damage done by sharing sensitive intelligence regarding the movement and location of known or suspected terrorists within Pakistan.

While Norway is no Pakistan, the level of Liberal infection within that country is so severe whereby it is not beyond imagination that such elements inside its security apparatus might tip off important counter-terrorism surveillance targets. The New York Times (along with other media outlets), already did the equivalent of this by publicizing the operations of SWIFT, also known as the "TFTP" (Terrorist Finance Tracking Program).

I, too, find the linguistic analysis most curious. Switching browsers will not account for the sudden mastery of Americanized prepositions. Moreover, as Sagunto pointed out, using "islamisation" 28 times (and its American counterpart zero), is very conspicuous because that word has yet to enter dictionaries at all, be they European or American.

Thank you, Baron, for this interesting dissection of a very important event. I look forward to further installments.

Richard: Like Timothy McVeigh? How can you possibly say "ALL the experts"? All you need to know about making a fertilizer bomb can be found on the Internet, by the way.

Are you totally unaware of detailed work done by Jayna Davis which shows the distinct likelihood that McVeigh may well have had access to al Qaeda bomb-building expertise?

Also, there are certain aspects about the Oklahoma City bomb's construction which are not widely publicized, such as specific additives to the ammonium nitrate and fuel oil mixture that enhance its otherwise dismal percussive properties. You know, the explosive characteristics which are needed to ensure that structural members, like steel girders, are sheared by the blast.

Feel free to read the linked article and find out for yourself.

Baron Bodissey said...

Martin K --

When he "gave himself up" to the police, he tried to hide his laptop in a storage locker.

Why the scare quotes around "gave himself up"? Do you think that is not really what Fjordman did?

And where did you hear that Fjordman attempted to hide his laptop in a storage locker? That assertion was not contained in Fjordman's posted account of what happened that day, nor did he ever communicate anything like that to me or Dymphna privately.

If you read it in the Norwegian media, you may do more than take it with a grain of salt: you may assume that it is false.

As I said in my statement to the press a couple of weeks ago: "It is astonishing how much bad information, innuendo, rumor published as fact, unsourced articles, character assassination, and outright lies are being published in Europe today. The lack of ethical behavior among professional journalists is absolutely appalling."

goethechosemercy said...

Fjordman did one inexcusable error. When he "gave himself up" to the police, he tried to hide his laptop in a storage locker. That turned the whole people against him, when the issue is such a large massacre of young ones and children, you dont. freaking. hinder. the. police.

You sound like you believe, to the very bottom of your soul, that Fjordman is guilty.
He was not involved in the crime, he did not command it, he did not facilitate it and he did not approve of it.
So what was this inexcusable error you're talking about?
What error?
Even if he had destroyed the laptop, he still would not have hindered the police.
There was nothing to find.
So you implicate him in the crime from your distant and comfortable place.
It is you who have acted irrationally.

Call Me Mom said...

@ Zenster,
Respectfully, I disagree. My post clearly notes Norway as an ally. There should be some level at which the authorities of Norway are reasonably trustworthy or why would we have them as an ally?
It may be that there was such notification and that is why the inquiry quietly went away, but that there should be no notification is unacceptable.
I realize that my opinion, as expressed here, may seem to counter the opinion expressed above. It does not. I think that everyone should be treated with dignity and trust until they have shown themselves unworthy of that treatment. On an individual level, I have no doubts that anyone is capable of the worst, but that is tempered by an equal faith that everyone is capable of the best. It's just a matter of sorting out who's who.

Zenster said...

Call Me Mom: Respectfully, I disagree. My post clearly notes Norway as an ally. There should be some level at which the authorities of Norway are reasonably trustworthy or why would we have them as an ally?

A damn fine question and one that is beggared by such actions as how, a Norwegian firm facilitated the transfer of highly sensitive propeller machining technology to the Cold War Soviets.

Soviet submarines of the Cold War were noisier, and therefore easier to detect than our own. Within the context of national security and defense, as well as our nuclear deterrence policy, it is easy to see why propeller research and design have been so carefully guarded. The propellers of USS Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine, are an exception. Essentially World War II submarine propellers, they—along with the rest of the sub—are on display at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, Connecticut, near where she was built in 1955.

But something happened to change all that. Back in the mid-1980s, the Japanese company Toshiba sold propeller milling machinery to the Soviets through the Norwegian Kongsberg firm; this and other submarine intelligence furnished by the Walker spy ring resulted in significantly quieter Soviet subs by the later part of the decade. As writer Neal Stevens wrote about the Akula-class Soviet boats, "The combined results generated a steep drop in broadband acoustic noise profiles."
[emphasis added]

Both Japan and Norway were supposed to be staunch American allies. Yet, as can be seen from the linked article, they helped Soviet attack class nuclear-powered submarines become much more difficult to track and locate.

Some allies.

A nation that knowingly harbors an active terrorist and does not even seize a perfectly justified chance to expel him when the opportunity presents itself is a dubious ally at best.

Condor said...

/2011 5:25 PM

Baron Bodissey said...
Martin K --

When he "gave himself up" to the police, he tried to hide his laptop in a storage locker.

Why the scare quotes around "gave himself up"? Do you think that is not really what Fjordman did?

And where did you hear that Fjordman attempted to hide his laptop in a storage locker? That assertion was not contained in Fjordman's posted account of what happened that day, nor did he ever communicate anything like that to me or Dymphna privately.

Just to update you a little bit. Fjordman himself was quoted in an interview he also confirmed to the Norwegian newspaper VG that he had hidden his laptop in a storage locker, but had given it up to the police during his interrogation at the police office. So the facts about this is quite clear - confirmed by fjordman himself.

Baron Bodissey said...

Martin K, Condor --

VG -- or your reading of what they printed -- is not entirely accurate.

Fjordman just sent us this statement through a third party:

“It is true that I had a suitcase with clothes and my laptop in a locker at the Oslo Central Station (Oslo S). This was because I knew that my face might be on the front page after I had talked to the newspaper VG, and I had planned to leave Oslo shortly after this, which I did. I didn’t ‘hide’ anything from the police, but showed up at their door out of my own free will at a time when they didn’t even know my name.

“I simply didn’t anticipate that they would confiscate my laptop, since I was a mere witness in the case.”

Dymphna said...

Re: the tempest in a teacup about Fjordman's laptop...

I was very afraid of what might be done to Fj by the police. He was going to go to them and simply tell them who he was. Since he knew he wasn't guilty of anything he figured they'd be receptive to his visit to them.

Having dealt with American and British police, I didn't share the optimism his ignorance engendered and I spent some sleepless nights worrying about his fate.

I nagged him into being ready to leave immediately after his interview and suggested he have his bag packed and ready to go as soon as he was released by the police. That's why his belongings were in a "storage locker" at the train station.

I was also insistent that he bring his lawyer with him to the police station. Just because he was innocent of wrong-doing didn't mean he wouldn't be mistreated. The lawyer and Fj were unpleasantly surprised by the hostility of the police; I wasn't. I WAS plesantly surprised that they finally let him go despite their unprofessional behavior while they were in his home.

I wonder if he'll ever get back his clothing and suitcase and books. The similarly hostile tone in these remarks about Fjordman demonstrate quite well that my concerns re his treatment were borne out by reality.

I hope he is able to reside someday in a place where he is valued just as he is. For now, he is learning the hard way that a prophet is without honor in his own country.

Fjordman calls himself a "witness" but he's not really. It's only the media hype that's turned him into one. If he's a witness then all the people mentioned in that so-called "manifesto" are witnesses, too.

In fact, everyone in Norway is a witness to ABB's behavoir, since Norway's culture produced him...the same way we are witnesses to the crazy loner in Arizona.

If you must blame someone why not start with the media heliocopter that hovered over the killer taking pictures as he finished off some of his victims? At the very least that ghoulish behavior could be termed as "an accessory TO the fact".

Put down your stones and go home, gentlemen.

Metalman said...

Breivik plagiarized the Unabomber Manifesto

Cyril Lucar said...

Re Fjordman

NEVER talk to the police.

Martin K said...

Umm, seriously: Fjordman knew he was involved in the greatest murdercase in norwegian history. He had admitted to have been in contact with the killer via net, a killer who had been very active on both NDL and SIAN forums as well as and others. Fjordmann has also been very active on the net, but with lots of international contacts. The police suspects the killer also had international contacts. And he truly did not believe that his computer and IP adresses were of interest to the investigation? In the VG article he is quoted as having at first been unwilling to cooperate, before a threat of detention made him budge. That is inexcusable behaviour, pure and simple. If i`m kind it shows a sort of social blindfold that lead him to not understand the severity of the situation and if Im mean it shows a tacit acceptance of the deeds done by Breivik. "he may have done wrong but he is on our team".

Call Me Mom said...

@ Zenster,
I appreciate your point, but can't help but think that we have not always been the best of allies either. Giving missile guidance technology to the Chinese during the Clinton admin, for instance. (And how dumb was that?)

@ Dymphna,
Well said. Thank the Lord you convinced Fjordman to take a lawyer with him. I cringe everytime I hear a parent assure their child that policemen are their friends who are there to protect them. I just want to yell:"No they are there to enforce the law!".

I can only think such an occasion would be any writer/bloggers worst nightmare come to pass. It took a lot of character on Fjordman's part to go down to the police station and tell them who he was.

Please extend my thanks and respect to Fjordman for such a demonstration of character. It has literally brought tears to my eyes to hear of it.

The more I learn of people, the more I have come to appreciate those who do such things. I may not agree with everything he has written,(I'm pretty sure I have not read everything he has written, so how could I know?) but I do agree with his determination to to do the right thing.

I am tired of watching the small cowardices and large denials of the truth that have become the norm of everyday life and the cage within which most people enclose themselves. It is truly a gift to have read about this. My thanks for sharing it with us.

Dymphna said...

@Martin K --

Your notions of individual liberty are certainly stunted at best. Or perhaps they're just Norwegian, in which case you can expect yet another berserker to be bred in the petri dish of your culture...

If your police were less totalitarian they'd have copied his hard drive and returned Fjordman's personal property to him.

...I stand by my original intuition. I wish he'd left the country and ONLY THEN, when safe, have called the police and turned over copies of what they needed.

The sum of his contact with ABB was the latter's attempt to meet with him, which Fj refused.

The fact that the media would hound Fjordman while ignoring the huge presence of the American CIA in Oslo speaks volumes about Norway's strange moral calculus.


@call me mom --

Going to the police with a lawyer wasn't ever my first suggestion. My first suggestion was that he get on the bus, Gus. It was obvious he was living in a very hostile environment, and nothing he did would be viewed with any sense of reality. I hoped he'd do that and THEN contact the police and give them copies of whatever they wanted.

Like many Norwegians, Fjordman is way too trusting of those in charge. Or rather, he was. I don't know how he feels now, but I'm guessing that his experience may have uprooted that trust.

Those charged with the solemn duty to enforce the law should treat people with respect. But they don't.

Have you seen this?

Don't Talk to the Cops

Someone left it in the comments...

It bears out my original intuition that going to the police could only hurt Fjordman.

As you can tell from some of these commenters on the thread with you, Fjordman's cooperation with the police didn't change any minds about his purported guilt.

The media have told the masses to link Fjordman with ABB so they do. Norwegians are nothing if not obedient to their masters...thus, if Fjordman is linked with this crazy loser, then everyone obediently gets in line with the received wisdom.

I'm so grateful that there are large sections of this country where such attitudes do not prevail. Unfortunately, the socialist mindset is all too prevalent in our mass media, academia, and the political class - iow, with our institutions. But at least here ppl can walk away from those lies.

Norway will continue to sail forth, safe in its delusions for quite a while since it runs on a huge endowment of oil wealth. Like Saudi Arabia, it's buffered from reality in the short term.

The rest of us aren't so fortunate.

Thus, once we hit the rocks of reality (see London or any American inner city) the socialists' utopian schemes turn into nightmares. We'll be left to our own devices as our ship begins to founder.

It's gonna be ugly sooner rather than later. And it's the young adults i feel sorry for. The ones raising children and trying to cope on less and less money in an increasingly constricted environment.

In the final analysis, I'm left with my original question: what good would it serve for Fjordman to go to the police? So far, the answer continues to be, NONE. It didn't help the police with their investigation of this loon, and it certainly didn't help Fjordman.

A prophet is without honor in his own country.

Anonymous said...

Fjordman wrote and published his files for everyone (everyone) to be seen: they are obiously meant to help people think/reasoning better about History, Culture(s), .... Usually Terrorists (as he almost supposed to be?) preach Hate, totalitarian Ideologies, and they write in a brainwashing/-polluting style: absolutely not the case of Fjordman! And God! He locked up his Writings (I imagine how much work, observations, analysis, ... did it take him to write them down, ... in order to publically publish them immediately afterwards) in a storage deposit ... at a/the rail station! (Uhhh! How hidden!) So dirty was/is he clearly not [as several are supposing instead]. Kindest regards.

Anonymous said...

SDU is not a CIA operation but a security operation designed to protect the embassy. It is a Department of State operation.

Dymphna said...

@ Federale...

Could you provide a source for your state dept. "assistance". I was relying on the cables from wikileaks and memory.

At any rate, why the big contingent in Norway? It has been remarked upon by several analysts as being unusual in its numbers, by the denial of the Embassy that it existed, and by its removal from the embassy to another location.

Any info and sources would be appreciated.

Call Me Mom said...

I watched parts 1 and 2 of that video with my son when he was much younger. We also watched together and discussed the ACLU(Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day -unless it's a digital, then it's just once or blank)videos regarding how to handle different situations with the police. Although I must thank the poster of that link as I was reminded to share that video with my son's fiancee, so that she too knows what to do in such cirumstances.

As for your advice to Fjordmaan, I still thank you for convincing him to take a lawyer with him. He may have disregarded your first admonition to flee the country before going to authorities, but at least he had a lawyer with him when he went. (At that, I admire him the more for wanting to do the right thing in his own nation. It may have been foolish, but it was right under the circumstances with Norway in mourning.)

Goodness only knows what the bloodthirsty media would have made from it had he not. (Not to mention how it might have been used to prop up a law enforcement community that must be just smarting at their inability to have stopped ABB sooner than they did.)
Oh dear, I'm not usually such a watering pot, but when I think of all those families, I just can't seem to help it.
Again, my thanks for the excellent work you all do here on this blog.

Christendom Forever! said...

Great article, Baron. Outstanding work. Keep it coming.

zx81 said...


"The fact that the media would hound Fjordman while ignoring the huge presence of the American CIA in Oslo speaks volumes about Norway's strange moral calculus."

What do you base this statement on? Please clarify how the Norwegian media ignored the presence of the CIA in Oslo.

Dymphna said...

@ Christendom Forever--

I've taken to looking at commenters' profiles since the Breivik slaughter to ascertain that people who show up here have been around for a while, which indeed you have! IOW, a profile dating back to July 2005 could be termed "a while" ;-) and therefore you're reliably NOT questionable.

While there I clicked on your blog (not exactly current, huh?) and skimmed your ideas. This is OT, but I'd be glad to discuss it briefly off-line if you want. There's a link to our email on the upper left sidebar).

[Briefly however, I propose that your emphases on a militant Christianity vis-a-vis the American founding documents do not fit what they said or believed back then. We were founded on Judaeo-Christian fundamentals, undergirded by (mostly) British philosophers of the day].

FWIW, I'd be willing to discuss it.

@ zx81:

Hmmm. Your profile has nothing but your date of sign on -- a few weeks ago. In general, since the Breivik massacre, I don't respond to commenters who are so newly arrived. My experience with them hasn't been conducive to a desire for "dialogue".

But Google is your friend. Take a few of the pertinent phrases and string them together> You'll find paranoids from both sides and a few nuggets of interesting info on both.

What no one on either side disagrees with, however, is the large presence of CIA in the US embassy, and Norway's unhappiness with that.

Sift thru alll that stuff and decide for yourself...

Halvor said...

This article has been added to the newly formed repository Analyzing Breivik's manifesto.

Anonymous said...

Here are some of Breivik's letters that can also be analyzed

Anonymous said...

Here are some of his letters that can also be anzalyzed.

Breivik's letters