Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Fjordman’s Suggested Testimony for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik

As regular readers know, a few days before his scheduled appearance Fjordman withdrew his offer to testify by skype at the trial of Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo. The defense team had sent him a list of potential questions, which prompted the preparation of the responses published below (in both Norwegian and English).


Suggested Testimony for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik
by Fjordman

Note: This text was initially written in Norwegian and then translated into English, but since most of the readers are non-Scandinavians, the English version will be presented here first.

Denne teksten ble skrevet på norsk og oversatt til engelsk, men siden de fleste av leserne er ikke-skandinaver har jeg valgt å presentere den engelske versjonen først, fulgt av den norske.

In 2012 I was subpoenaed as a witness for the trial against the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik by his defense lawyers. Until the beginning of June I seriously considered saying yes to testifying on the Internet but eventually rejected this. One of the reasons for this is that I intensely disliked the way the defense lawyers had mistreated a number of people, trying to harass them into testifying without informing them that they actually did not have a legal obligation to testify at all. I find this behavior rude and unethical.

I also found it unacceptable that certain expert witnesses were defined as “right-wing extremists” whose testimonies could not be broadcast. This was stated by the court itself, represented by judges Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Arne Lyng plus co-judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Anne Elisabeth Wisløff and Diana Patricia Fynbo.

In essence, this implied that the testimonies of pro-Multicultural and pro-Islamic persons could be broadcast, whereas those critical of Multiculturalism and Islam, such as myself and Bruce Bawer, could not be broadcast. This represented naked political and ideological censorship by the court, which is unacceptable.

I did have a number of things that I wanted to convey to the public, however. I have therefore decided to publish a testimony online that I would have liked to have given. I received a few questions from Breivik’s defense lawyers indicating that they wanted to ask me about censorship and bias in the mass media. My short answer to this is that yes, there is censorship in the mainstream media, which generally suffer from a pronounced left-wing political and ideological bias in favor of Islam, mass immigration and Multiculturalism.

However, I do not want to make that the main issue. It is unlikely that I would have been able to present a testimony identical to the one you can read here since I would have been interrupted and asked different questions. Yet I do believe that many of the issues I raise here are relevant to the Breivik case overall.

English version

Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your background?

My real name is Peder Jensen. I have posted articles on the Internet under the pseudonym Fjordman since February 2005. I initially started writing articles on my own blog, but from 2006 I have guest-blogged on other websites, usually in English, although some of my texts have been translated into several different languages.

I was born and raised in Ålesund. I am a university graduate having studied English, taking exams in history with an emphasis on Norwegian history, world history, Middle Eastern and Chinese history. I began studying the Arabic language at the University of Bergen, Norway and continued with these studies at the American University of Cairo in Egypt in 2001.

I worked for the Norwegian-led observer group TIPH in the Palestinian city of Hebron in 2002 and most of 2003. This was partly coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but I was formally employed by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), then led by the current party secretary of the Norwegian Labor Party, Raymond Johansen. One of my bosses in Hebron was Arnstein Øverkil, former head of the Police Security Service (PST). I took a master’s degree at the University of Oslo in culture and technology in 2004, writing a master’s thesis on blogging in Iran.

I have entertained the idea of taking a PhD in topics related to Internet censorship, but I haven’t pursued this idea so far. I deliberately decided not to embark on a career in the NRC, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar organizations, partly for political reasons. I had become highly critical of Islam and found it increasingly difficult to work for organizations which I found to be too pro-Islamic.

There are many decent people working for the NRC who do a good job, but the organization’s condemnation of the Danish Muhammad cartoons made it virtually impossible for me to continue working for them. I interpreted their response to this incident as a clear submission to sharia law, Islamic intimidation and censorship, and I couldn’t accept that.

What was your reaction to the July 22 attacks? You decided to contact the Norwegian police?

At the time of the attacks, in the summer of 2011, I was working part-time at a center for individuals with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome. This was a decent job with decent individuals, but as a part-time job it also gave me the flexibility to focus on my writing while at the same time paying the most basic bills. The people I worked with there knew absolutely nothing about my blogging activities.

I was living in Oslo on July 22. By July 23, literally overnight, I had become the country’s second-most hated person due to the actions of a mentally unbalanced man I have never met. This was an absurd situation that was very difficult to handle. Some of my friends advised me to leave Norway immediately, but I considered this to be cowardice. People who run away also tend to look guilty, and I had done nothing criminal.

After discussing it with friends and family, I decided to contact the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST). I physically visited their national headquarter in Nydalen in Oslo on July 27, where I introduced myself by my real name. They told me that they were busy and asked me instead to send them an email, which I did. They then referred me to the regular police.

After consulting with my lawyers at the law firm of Staff, I voluntarily reported at the Manglerud Police Station in Oslo on August 4, 2011 accompanied by attorney Knut Ditlev-Simonsen. At that time neither the police authorities nor the Norwegian mass media had the slightest idea who I was, even though police attorney Kraby claimed otherwise.

The first meeting was turbulent. I considered it reasonable that the police wanted to interview me, considering that some of my texts had been cited in Breivik’s manifesto. However, I still don’t believe the police attorneys Christian Hatlo and Pål-Fredrik Hjort Kraby had the legal right to ransack the home of a witness who had not been charged with anything, without having any shred of evidence suggesting that this person had committed a crime. The fact that someone had been quoted in the manifesto only proved that Anders Behring Breivik was among the billions of individuals on the planet who had access to the Internet. Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy were quoted in his manifesto, too.

I was questioned by the Norwegian police a second time in November. This interview did not take place in Oslo. The clothes which had been confiscated during the ransacking of my flat were finally returned to me. I was also informed, after first having answered some further questions, that I had been eliminated from the case on account of the fact that I had been honest from the onset. I have never met Breivik, nor did he know my true identity before it became publicly known.

The only indirect contact between us existed on the Norwegian blog Document.no, where we and many others regularly posted comments. He once made an attempt there to contact me via email. I was not interested in meeting him, however, and politely rejected his advances. In this regard, it is important to remember that Breivik did not write violent comments.

It is unclear whether Breivik is insane, but few people doubt that he at least has a personality disorder and sometimes evidences psychopathic behavior. In the mind of a psychopath, every rejection or slight to your own person, however small, can be seen as an attack that must be revenged.

I indicated to the Norwegian police in 2011 that I have no knowledge of a terrorist organization such as the Knights Templar and strongly doubt its existence. Also, it is doubtful that such a hypothetical organization, if it had existed, would have been particularly interested in an individual without higher education, military experience, practical expertise or a political network of any significant value to them. Breivik’s self-centered personality would also make such cooperation difficult. It’s satisfying to observe that the police, after having investigated the matter for almost a year, appear to have reached the same conclusion.

Have you read Breivik’s compendium or manifesto? If so, what is your impression of it and its content?

At the time I was interviewed by the police in the autumn of 2011 I had not read it. However, I decided to read it in the spring of 2012, mainly because of rumors circulating that I might have to testify at the trial, but partly because I was toying with the idea of writing a book about the Breivik case. I finished reading the manifesto a week before the trial began. I read the whole text (as found on the Internet) from start to finish, and took notes while I was reading it. I must emphasize that I have not performed a detailed analysis of the entire manifesto, however. I see no reason to do so — that should be a task for the police.

What is your general impression of the manifesto?

Breivik’s so-called manifesto can only be described as utter rubbish. There are certain texts within it which seen in isolation appear as logically coherent, but that is purely due to the fact that Breivik himself didn’t write them. Generally speaking, it’s a remarkably incoherent text, a confused product of a very confused mind. The compendium is extremely poorly edited and excessively long. It is scarcely credible that Breivik supposedly spent years working on it.

The first part of the manifesto appears reasonably coherent, but only because it cites or reproduces texts from a number of Islam-critical authors, including Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or and Andrew G. Bostom. The second half is dramatically and at times shockingly different, with descriptions of methods for committing mass murder interspersed with meaningless scribbles about the Knights Templars, and almost embarrassingly banal personal details about what type of music Breivik listens to on his portable iPod player. The manifesto includes a list of European nuclear reactors as potential terrorist targets, plus meticulous diary notes made by Breivik in the spring of 2011 on how to make one’s own bomb.

The compendium claims that the Chernobyl accident in 1986 was a terrorist attack. It’s unclear where this idea originated, since this theory is fairly uncommon even on the Internet.

The manifesto includes discussions about what type of personal equipment and weapons are best suited for executions. It is obvious that Breivik cannot have copied this from me, Robert Spencer or Bat Ye’or, as we have never written anything about such topics. However, he does quote from many different websites, among which the Internet-based encyclopedia Wikipedia is most prominent. The extent to which he has quoted from Wikipedia in his compendium came as a surprise to me when I was reading it. There has been comparatively little focus on this issue in the mass media. There are dozens of references to Wikipedia in the manifesto, including those sections of it dealing with weapons, ammunition, grenades and armor.

The importance of Wikipedia as a source is plausible, given that the mass murderer himself stated during the trial that Wikipedia had been his primary source of education. To label Breivik the Wikipedia terrorist may be a slight exaggeration, but it is not entirely without merit.

Another noticeable fact is that in some parts of the manifesto his English is good but in other sections it is noticeably poorer. Breivik makes grammatical mistakes in several parts of the manifesto, for example singular-plural errors of the type “they thinks that ….,” which are of such a basic character that even an automatic spelling checker, such as the one found in the popular Word program, could have weeded them out. If Breivik really spent many years working on this manifesto — which he claims will save our civilization — it’s hard to understand why he couldn’t invest a few extra minutes running it through a simple spell-check. It almost seems that the content of the manifesto was of secondary importance to him.

Combined with its absurd length — over 1500 pages, for which there is no rational justification — one is left with the impression that the primary function of the manifesto is to highlight Breivik’s imaginary greatness as a human being.

Is it true that you are cited in the manifesto? If so, what are your thoughts on that?

I have always written what I hold to be the truth, even when this truth may be considered unpleasant. I will do so in this case, too. The so-called manifesto cites and abuses numerous honorable people, from Winston Churchill and John Locke to George Orwell and Gandhi. Some of the most militant quotes, excluding those written by Breivik himself, originate from two former presidents of the USA, Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy.

Among this strange array of texts one will also find quotes from articles that I have written, and in some cases entire essays. I have not analyzed the manifesto in detail and don’t intend to do so, but I can confirm that it contains passages that I recognize and have written. Like much of the other content, these were copied from texts that are available on the Internet in English.

You have described Breivik’s manifesto as strange. What do you mean by that?

By that I mean that the text is a mixture of widely disparate sources arranged in a way that is unlikely to make much sense to anybody apart from Breivik himself. Several experts from different disciplines have pointed out that it is difficult to find any clear internal logic or common thread in the manifesto, which points in many different ideological directions.

One of the few things the author is consistent about is that he’s not a Nazi. Yet during the trial, Breivik repeatedly praised well-known neo-Nazis, and indicated that “cultural conservatives” are identical to the Axis powers during World War II — in other words, Nazi Germany and its allies. He is also an anti-racist who believes that race is important and an anti-Socialist who speaks highly of revolutionary Socialists such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. It’s difficult to criticize Breivik’s ideology because it’s difficult to discern that he has any at all, apart from a strong fascination for violence and a remarkably pronounced desire to highlight his own person.

Early on during the trial, Breivik indicated that his role models are all people who use violence, regardless of their ideology — international and national Socialists as well as militant Muslims. In the case of Anders Behring Breivik, there is reason to suspect that violence is not a means to achieve a specific end, but rather that violence is the end in itself.

Are there many people who support Breivik’s violent actions?

Brynjar Lia, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, and one of the least politicized witnesses during the trial, pointed out that what distinguishes Breivik from other terrorists is the total lack of context. Even the most brutal Al Qaeda Jihadists are trying to reach out to ordinary Muslims through their acts of violence.

Breivik on the other hand has received virtually no sympathy at all from any groups, regardless of political color, with the possible exception of some very marginal groups of actual neo-Nazis. If his goal was to trigger a major social upheaval, he has so far been a complete failure in this regard. This may be due to the fact that his world view is so deviant and far removed from actual reality that he is genuinely incapable of understanding other people’s reactions, or that his acts of violence were mostly about gaining personal attention — or possibly both.

It is questionable to what extent Breivik can be considered a rational individual. To the extent that he is one, though, one may argue that he has reached one of his goals. The American writer Daniel Pipes — one of many individuals who have been grossly misused in the so-called manifesto — hypothesized early on that Breivik’s intention may have been to damage those that he quoted in his compendium precisely because they are not violent. Among other things, he mentions there that his limited involvement with the Progress Party in Oslo will probably be used against that party in public. Breivik actually liked this idea.

This theory has been considerably strengthened by the fact that Breivik stated openly and repeatedly during the trial that he wanted to unleash with his actions and his manifesto a “witch-hunt” on moderate voices and non-violent critics of Islam and immigration. Unfortunately, he has at times been quite successful in his efforts. In this regard, most of the mass media and the political establishment have essentially acted as Breivik’s useful idiots from day one.

Breivik likes to portray himself as a great military leader who follows in the footsteps of Charles Martel in a quest to restore traditional masculinity. What is your take on this?

People such as Charles Martel and John III Sobieski showed personal courage by confronting heavily armed hostile military forces on the battlefield when both parties knew fully well that they were engaged in a war. Anders Behring Breivik massacred unarmed civilians of his own nation who were totally unprepared for battle. He’s just a cowardly butcher. Traditional masculinity also emphasizes protecting your women and children, not massacring them.

When I was 14 or 15 years old — the same age as the youngest victims on Utøya — I attended meetings of the youth wing of the Socialist Left Party, which is ideologically to the left of AUF. Breivik would also have killed me when I was that age.

Is it true that Breivik’s world view is common among anti-Islamists?

Several so-called expert witnesses, including Terje Emberland, Mattias Gardell, Lars Gule and Øyvind Strømmen, have suggested that Breivik’s world view is quite common among anti-Islamists and Islam critics. This is utter nonsense.

However, it is legitimate to point out that for instance Gardell has openly cooperated with representatives from the Islamic Jihadist terrorist organization Hamas, and that Anders Behring Breivik has repeatedly expressed his great admiration for Islamic Jihadist terrorist organizations.

Breivik is routinely referred to as an “anti-Islamist”, especially among those who do not like such people. It is clear, however, based on both his manifesto and his comments from the trial, that Breivik harbors great admiration for Islamic Jihadist terrorists such as the terror network Al Qaeda, which he sees as a role model for his violence. Considering that the Islamic Jihadist terrorists find inspiration for their actions in Islamic religious texts such as the Koran, one might argue that one of Breivik’s indirect sources of inspiration for his violent acts was the Koran.

His notions of becoming a “martyr” through mass killing are strongly influenced by Islamic beliefs, which he freely admits in the manifesto. Given his fascination with violence, terrorism and videos of beheadings, Breivik demonstrates such an obvious kinship with Muslim Jihadists that it should surprise no one if he converts to Islam while behind bars.

One does not need to be in the slightest bit insane to be concerned about the consequences of the current immigration policies in many Western nations, which could see many native Europeans turned into minorities in a number of their own countries within a few years.

Breivik’s possible madness may be observed in his deeply warped notions about the Knights Templar, which organization probably doesn’t exist. He talked at length about the KT in interviews with the police and in conversations with his first court-appointed psychiatrists, and only changed his explanations of this matter after he was declared insane. One may disagree with the first pair of forensic psychiatrists, Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, but the fact remains that the organization Knights Templar appears very real and central to those parts of the manifesto that Breivik most likely authored himself. This was certainly not a peripheral idea in his mind.

In his manifesto, Breivik presented himself as “judge, jury and executioner,” which partly describes the way he actually behaved when he committed his mass murders. This concept was most likely taken from a comic strip called Judge Dredd, which has also been made into films. In other words, Anders Behring Breivik identifies with a fictional cartoon character. Some observers might propose that this could be interpreted as a sign of serious detachment from reality on the part of a man who apparently has trouble distinguishing between his own fictional world and the real world.

Several of his uniforms and descriptions of Knights Templar rituals appear cartoonish, almost clownish. They would trigger laughter, had he not killed dozens of people. Descriptions of his percentage of life force may have been taken from computer games, where such notations are common. The manner in which the manifesto lists various types of weapons, ammunition and equipment is similar to equipment lists in computer games such as World of Warcraft.

It must be stressed here that the vast majority of those who play online games like World of Warcraft do not exhibit violent behavior. I have younger relatives who have spent much time playing WoW, but wouldn’t hurt a fly. However, it is conceivable that a person who already suffers from a blurred distinction between fiction and reality could be more affected by this role-playing.

The public may rest assured that it is not common behavior within anti-Islamic environments to create an imaginary, cartoonish world where one is “judge, jury and executioner”, head of a non-existent pan-European terrorist organization which aims to blow up nuclear reactors, pose in one’s underwear for the police after having slaughtered dozens of people, write a manifesto about one’s candy-eating habits and one’s sister’s alleged sexually-transmitted diseases, or to believe that one will be canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church for having massacred unarmed teenagers. These are clearly bizarre delusions which indicate what we normally refer to as madness, at least in popular awareness, and possibly also in the medical sense.

Do you believe that Breivik is insane?

I have never met Breivik in person so I cannot give any conclusive answer to this question. As I’ve mentioned previously, I believe that there are quite a few elements in his manifesto and statements made by him afterwards which could indicate insanity in the clinical sense of the term. Yet at the same time there is no doubt that he exhibited calculated brutality with his acts of terrorism on July 22, 2011. A number of his statements before, during and after his horrific attacks could also indicate that he knew that he was massacring real human beings.

I notice that several of those who testified during the trial, and even more of those who didn’t do so, have been quite categorical in their opinions as to whether Breivik is sane or not. It may be perceived as arrogant to make strong conclusions about a person one has never met. In my opinion, too many people are guilty of doing just that. I shall therefore decline to pass judgment on what is wrong with Breivik.

However, I would like to say this: At the time of Breivik horrific massacre I was working with individuals who have high-functioning autism or Asperger’s syndrome. Asperger’s is a general term for people with very different characteristics, but if there is such a thing as a typical person with Asperger’s he would more closely resemble Magnus Carlsen, the Norwegian who is currently the highest-ranked chess player in the world, than Breivik.

I have no formal education in psychiatry, but I do have some experience within this field as I worked on and off for several years at the closed unit of the psychiatric ward at Ålesund Hospital. I have firsthand experience in working with people who suffer from psychosis or paranoid schizophrenia. One of the things I learned from doing this work is that it is perfectly possible for a person to have above average intelligence and at the same time to be both calculating and manipulative, all the while being totally insane. The human mind is incredibly complex.

I don’t know which diagnosis that best fits Breivik and I will refrain from attempting to give him one, but it’s interesting that so many of the country’s leading experts in the field of psychiatry find it difficult to come up with a precise diagnosis.

Perhaps the fact that there are two conflicting psychiatric reports is not evidence that one pair of forensic psychiatrists, such as Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim who have been grossly attacked by the press, are idiots, while the other pair of court-appointed psychiatrists are absolutely correct. It may be because Breivik is, objectively speaking, very hard to classify. Even the experienced psychiatrists Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrisen admit that they’ve never met anyone quite like Breivik. He is atypical even of atypical cases.

Anders Behring Breivik not only breaks the boundaries of normal behavior, he even breaks the boundaries of abnormal behavior. He sometimes exhibits signs that may suggest paranoia and madness, but he is not a typical paranoid schizophrenic, nor does he exhibit typical traits for a person with Asperger’s syndrome. Most people diagnosed as such don’t harm or kill others. It is possible that he could have several of the suggested diagnoses, or none of them.

We often attempt to draw clear distinctions between calculated evil and irrational madness, but such sharp distinctions may not always exist. Sometimes the lines are blurred. Breivik could be such a case; it’s hard to say for certain.

Without necessarily agreeing with everything the forensic psychiatrists have stated, one is left with little doubt that a person with such highly developed violent fantasies who has slaughtered dozens of people without showing the slightest hint of remorse may constitute a danger to his surroundings in the future as well. Whether he is declared sane or insane is to me a matter of secondary importance. What is most important is that he should remain locked up for the rest of his life. I believe that it would deeply offend the sense of justice of every Norwegian if Breivik is allowed out on leave from prison in a few years’ time.

Is there anything in your opinion that hasn’t been sufficiently discussed during the trial?

I have not been present at the trial myself, but my impression is that the prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden have done a good job. The Norwegian police also seem to have done a decent job in a very large and complex case, at least when it comes to their investigation after the attacks. How they performed before and during the attacks is for others to evaluate.

It has previously been claimed in the mass media that only a few months before the attacks took place, in March 2011, a man rang the switchboard of the government offices in Oslo and talked about a manifesto and shooting members of the AUF. He allegedly rebuked the government, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and former PM Gro Harlem Brundtland.

If this is true, two different possibilities offer themselves. The first is that this caller wasn’t Breivik; the second is that it was. If the caller wasn’t Breivik then this is very interesting, but the most plausible scenario is that it really was him. If we are able to trust the press — and this isn’t always the case — Breivik has both confirmed and denied that he was the caller in question.

Breivik managed to carry out a major attack without being detected beforehand, but if it is indeed true that he called the government offices just weeks prior to his car bomb went off and talked about shooting members of the AUF, then this is very bizarre behavior for a person who desperately wanted to fly under the radar of the authorities. He ran a real risk of being exposed when doing so. This suggests that he wasn’t always as mentally balanced as he would now like us to believe. He apparently “lost it” in a major way at least once. It’s surprising that there hasn’t been more focus on this aspect of the case. This incident isn’t necessarily crucial, but could help shed more light on Breivik’s psyche and state of mind.

Norsk versjon

Kan du fortelle oss litt om din bakgrunn?

Mitt egentlige navn er Peder Jensen, men siden februar 2005 har jeg skrevet på internett under pseudonymet Fjordman. Til å begynne med skrev jeg på min egen blogg, men siden 2006 har jeg gjesteblogget på en rekke andre nettsider, normalt sett på engelsk selv om noen av mine tekster er blitt oversatt til en del andre språk.

Jeg er født og oppvokst i Ålesund. På universitetsnivå har jeg studert engelsk og avlagt eksamener i norsk historie og verdenshistorie samt Midtøstens og Kinas historie. Jeg begynte med studier i arabisk språk ved Universitetet i Bergen i Norge og tok i 2001 ytterligere studier i dette ved The American University in Cairo i Egypt. Jeg arbeidet deretter i 2002 og deler av 2003 som observatør i den norskledede observatørgruppen TIPH i den palestinske byen Hebron. Dette er til dels koordinert av Utenriksdepartementet, men jeg jobbet formelt for Flyktningehjelpen, som da var ledet av Arbeiderpartiets nåværende partisekretær Raymond Johansen. En av mine sjefer i Hebron var Arnstein Øverkil, tidligere leder for Politiets sikkerhetstjeneste (PST). Jeg tok en mastergrad ved Universitetet i Oslo i kultur og teknologi i 2004, med mastergradsoppgave om blogging i Iran.

Jeg har tidligere vært inne på tanken om å ta doktorgrad i temaer knyttet til internettsensur, men har hittil ikke gjort dette. Jeg har bevisst og aktivt valgt bort en karriere i Flyktningehjelpen, Utenriksdepartementet og lignende organisasjoner, delvis av politiske grunner. Jeg var i mellomtiden blitt sterkt kritisk til islam og fant det stadig vanskeligere for min egen samvittighets del å jobbe med organisasjoner jeg oppfattet som altfor pro-islamske. Det er mange fine mennesker i Flyktningehjelpen som gjør en god jobb, men organisasjonens fordømmelse av de danske Muhammedkarikaturene gjorde det i praksis umulig for meg å jobbe for dem etterpå. Jeg oppfattet dette som et klart knefall for sharialover, islamske trusler og sensur. Det kan jeg ikke akseptere.

Hvordan reagerte du etter angrepene den 22. juli? Du tok selv kontakt med norsk politi?

Da Breiviksaken inntraff sommeren 2011 hadde jeg en deltidsjobb på et dagsenter hvor jeg arbeidet med personer med høytfungerende autisme og Aspergers syndrom. Dette var en OK jobb med hyggelige mennesker, men som deltidsjobb gav det meg også tilstrekkelig fleksibilitet til å betale grunnleggende regninger samtidig som jeg kunne skrive ved siden av. De jeg jobbet med da visste absolutt ingenting om mine bloggaktiviteter.

Jeg bodde i Oslo den 22. juli. Den 23. juli, bokstavelig talt over natten, var jeg blitt landets nest mest forhatte person på grunn av gjerningene til en mentalt ubalansert mann jeg aldri noensinne har møtt. Det var en absurd situasjon som var meget vanskelig å håndtere. Enkelte venner anbefalte meg å forlate landet med en gang, men jeg betraktet dette som feigt. De som stikker av ser dessuten skyldige ut, og jeg ikke hadde gjort noe kriminelt.

Etter å ha konsultert med venner og familie valgte jeg å kontakte Politiets sikkerhetstjeneste (PST) ved å fysisk besøke deres nasjonale hovedkvarter i Nydalen i Oslo den 27. juli og presentere meg ved mitt reelle navn. De opplyste at de var opptatt og ba meg sende en epost, hvilket jeg gjorde. De sendte meg videre til det ordinære politiet. Etter å ha konsultert med firmaet Staff troppet jeg frivillig opp på Manglerud politistasjon i Oslo den 4. august 2011 sekundert av advokat Knut Ditlev-Simonsen. Norske politimyndigheter eller massemedier hadde på dette tidspunktet ikke den aller fjerneste anelse hvem jeg var, selv om politiadvokat Kraby hevdet noe annet.

Det første møtet var turbulent. Jeg mente det var rimelig at politiet ville snakke med meg ettersom enkelte av mine tekster er sitert i manifestet. Jeg tror imidlertid fremdeles ikke at politiadvokatene Christian Hatlo og Pål-Fredrik Hjort Kraby hadde lovhjemmel for å ransake boligen til et vitne som ikke var siktet for noe som helst når det ikke fantes det minste fnugg av bevis for at den personen hadde begått en kriminell handling. At noen er sitert i manifestet beviser strengt tatt ikke noe annet enn at Anders Behring Breivik var en blant milliarder av mennesker på planeten som har tilgang til internett. Winston Churchill og John F. Kennedy er også sitert der.

Jeg snakket med norsk politi igjen under et nytt avhør i november, denne gangen ikke i Oslo. Jeg fikk da tilbake klærne mine som de hadde beslaglagt første gang. Etter å ha besvart noen videre spørsmål fikk jeg beskjed om at jeg var sjekket ut av saken siden jeg hadde snakket sant helt fra begynnelsen av. Jeg har aldri noensinne møtt Breivik. Han kjente heller ikke min egentlige identitet før den ble offentlig kjent. Den eneste formen for indirekte kontakt vi har hatt er at vi begge var blant mange andre som postet kommentarer på bloggen Document.no, der han en gang forsøkte å kontakte meg via epost. Jeg var ikke interessert i å møtes og avviste høflig hans kontaktforsøk. Det er viktig å få med seg her at Breivik i sine kommentarer ikke skrev noe voldelig.

Det er uklart om Breivik er sinnssyk, men få mennesker tviler på at han i alle fall har en personlighetsforstyrrelse og noen ganger utviser klare psykopatiske trekk. I hodet til en psykopat kan enhver avvisning eller krenkelse av din egen person, uansett hvor liten den er, bli sett på som et angrep som må hevnes.

Jeg antydet overfor politiet allerede i 2011 at jeg ikke har noen kjennskap til en terrororganisasjon som Knights Templar og sterkt betviler dens eksistens. Jeg tror heller ikke at en slik hypotetisk organisasjon, dersom den faktisk hadde eksistert, ville vært interessert i en person uten utdannelse, militær erfaring, praktisk ekspertise eller politisk nettverk av betydning. Breiviks selvsentrerte personlighet ville også vanskeliggjort et samarbeid. Det er hyggelig å konstatere at politiet etter et års etterforskning ser ut til å ha kommet til samme konklusjon.

Har du lest Breiviks kompendium eller manifest? I så fall, hva er ditt inntrykk av dette og dets innhold?

Jeg hadde ikke lest det da jeg snakket med politiet høsten 2011. Jeg bestemte meg imidlertid for å gjøre dette våren 2012, mest fordi det var snakk om at jeg kanskje måtte vitne under rettssaken, og litt fordi jeg lekte med tanken om å skrive bok om Breiviksaken. Jeg fullførte det en uke før rettssaken startet ved å lese igjennom hele teksten slik jeg fant den på internett fra første til siste side og ta notater underveis. Jeg må presisere at jeg ikke har detaljanalysert alle deler av manifestet. Det ser jeg heller ingen grunn til, det bør være politiets jobb.

Hva er ditt generelle inntrykk av manifestet?

Breiviks såkalte manifest kan kun beskrives som et rent makkverk. Det finnes noen tekster der som isolert sett er logisk sammenhengende, men det er utelukkende fordi Breivik ikke har skrevet dem. Samlet sett er det en sterkt usammenhengende tekst, et forvirret produkt av et svært forvirret sinn. Kompendiet er latterlig dårlig redigert og umotivert langt i antall sider. Det er vanskelig å forstå at Breivik skal ha brukt flere år på dette.

Den første delen fremstår som noenlunde meningsfull fordi den siterer eller republiserer tekster fra en rekke islamkritiske forfattere, deriblant Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or og Andrew G. Bostom. Den andre halvdelen er dramatisk og til dels sjokkerende annerledes, med beskrivelser av metoder for å begå massedrap blandet med meningsløse skriblerier om Knights Templar og nesten pinlig banale personlige detaljer om hva slags musikk Breivik lytter til på sin bærbare iPod-spiller. Manifestet lister opp europeiske atomreaktorer som mulige terrormål pluss nitidige dagboknotater fra Breivik våren 2011 om hvordan man kan lage sin egen bombe.

Kompendiet hevder at Tsjernobyl-ulykken i 1986 ikke var en ulykke men et terrorangrep mot atomkraftverket der. Jeg er usikker på hvor denne ideen kommer fra siden den så vidt jeg vet er nokså uvanlig selv på internett.

Manifestet inkluderer diskusjoner om hva slags personlig utrustning og våpen er best egnet til å henrette folk med. Breivik kan opplagt ikke ha kopiert dette fra meg, Robert Spencer eller Bat Ye’or ettersom vi aldri har skrevet om slike temaer. Til gjengjeld siterer han mange ulike nettsider, hvorav det internettbaserte leksikonet Wikipedia er det viktigste. Det kom som en overraskelse på meg da jeg leste manifestet hvor mye det faktisk siterer Wikipedia. Dette har det vært underfokusert på av massemediene. Det er dusinvis av referanser til Wikipedia over hele manifestet, inkludert seksjonene som omhandler våpen, ammunisjon, granater og rustning.

Det høres rimelig ut når drapsmannen selv uttalte under rettssaken at Wikipedia har vært hans viktigste kilde til utdannelse. Å kalle Breivik for Wikipedia-terroristen er kanskje en overdrivelse, men det er ikke helt galt heller.

En annen ting jeg bet meg merke i er at mens engelsken noen steder flyter bra er den dårligere andre steder. Breivik inkluderer flere steder grammatiske feil av så grunnleggende karakter, for eksempel entall-flertall av typen “they thinks that….” at selv en automatisk stavekontroll som man finner blant annet på det populære Word-programmet kunne ha luket dem ut. Dersom Breivik virkelig har brukt mange år på dette manifestet, som han selv hevder skal redde vår sivilisasjon, begriper jeg ikke hvorfor han ikke kunne ha spandert noen få ekstra minutter på en enkel stavekontroll. Det virker nesten som om innholdet er av underordnet betydning for ham.

Kombinert med dets absurde lenge på over 1500 sider, som jeg ikke kan se noen rasjonell begrunnelse for, sitter man igjen med inntrykket av at manifestets hovedfunksjon er å fremheve Breiviks innbilte storhet som person.

Er det riktig at du er sitert i manifestet? Hva er i så fall dine tanker omkring dette?

Jeg har alltid skrevet for å holde meg til det jeg mener er sannheten, selv når denne kan oppfattes som ubehagelig. Jeg skal gjøre det samme i denne saken. Det såkalte manifestet siterer og misbruker en lang rekke hederlige personer, fra Winston Churchill og John Locke til George Orwell og Gandhi. Noen av de mest militante sitatene som ikke er skrevet av Breivik selv er tatt fra to tidligere presidenter i USA, Thomas Jefferson og John F. Kennedy.

Blant denne merkelige blandingen av tekster finner man også utdrag eller sitater fra et flertall tekster jeg har skrevet, i noen tilfeller hele essayer. Jeg har ikke detaljanalysert manifestet og planlegger heller ikke å gjøre dette, men jeg kan bekrefte at det inneholder noen passasjer som jeg gjenkjenner og har skrevet. Som det meste annet er dette hentet fra tekster som ligger offentlig tilgjengelig på internett på engelsk.

Du omtaler Breiviks manifest som merkelig. Hva legger du i det?

Med det mener jeg at teksten er en blanding av svært forskjellige kilder satt sammen på en måte som neppe gir særlig mening for mange andre enn Breivik selv. Flere eksperter fra ulike fagområder har påpekt at det er meget vanskelig å finne en klar indre logikk eller rød tråd i manifestet, som spriker i mange retninger ideologisk sett.

En av de ganske få tingene forfatteren er konsekvent på er at han ikke er nazist. Men under rettssaken snakket Breivik flere ganger positivt om kjente nynazister og indikerte at “kulturkonservative” er identiske med aksemaktene under andre verdenskrig, det vil si Nazi-Tyskland og dets allierte. Han er også antirasist samtidig som han mener at rase betyr noe og antisosialist som snakker varmt om revolusjonære sosialister som Fidel Castro og Che Guevara. Det er vanskelig å kritisere Breiviks ideologi fordi det ikke er åpenbart at han har en i det hele tatt, annet enn en sterk fascinasjon for vold og en påfallende sterk trang til å fremheve sin egen person.

Breivik gav tidlig under rettssaken uttrykk for at hans forbilder er alle som bruker vold, uansett ideologi, internasjonale og nasjonale sosialister så vel som militante muslimer. I tilfellet Anders Behring Breivik er det grunn til å mistenke at vold ikke er et middel for å nå et bestemt mål, men at volden snarere er målet i seg selv.

Har Breivik stor støtte for sine voldshandlinger?

Brynjar Lia, seniorforsker ved Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt og ett av de minst politiserte vitnene under rettssaken, påpeker at det som skiller Breivik fra andre terrorister er den totale mangelen på kontekst. Selv ekstremt brutale jihadister fra al-Qaida søker å appellere til vanlige muslimer gjennom sine voldshandlinger.

Breivik har derimot stort sett ikke mottatt noen form for sympati fra noen grupper uansett politisk avskygning, med et mulig unntak for enkelte svært marginale grupper av reelle nynazister. Dersom hans mål var å utløse store samfunnsomveltninger har han hittil vært en total fiasko. Dette kan enten skyldes at hans verdensbilde er så avvikende at han er genuint ute av stand til å forstå andre menneskers reaksjonsmønstre eller at hans voldshandlinger i bunn og grunn mest handlet om å skaffe personlig oppmerksomhet, eventuelt begge deler.

Det er diskuterbart i hvor stor grad Breivik kan betraktes som en rasjonell aktør. I den grad han er det kan man muligens si at han har nådd ett av sine mål. Den amerikanske forfatteren Daniel Pipes, en av mange som er blitt grovt misbrukt i det såkalte manifestet, lanserte tidlig tesen om at Breivik kan ha søkt å ødelegge for dem han siterer i sitt kompendium nettopp fordi de ikke er voldelige. For eksempel nevner han at han tror at hans begrensede befatning med Fremskrittspartiet vil bli brukt til å skade dette partiet. Han liker selv denne tanken.

Denne teorien er blitt betydelig styrket av at Breivik flere ganger i løpet av rettssaken har direkte uttalt at han ønsket å utløse en “heksejakt” på moderate stemmer og ikke-voldelige islam- og innvandringskritikere med sine handlinger og sitt manifest. Det har han dessverre til tider lykkes med. På dette punktet har store deler av massemediene og det politiske establishment opptrådt som Breiviks nyttige idioter nesten fra første dag.

Breivik fremhever seg selv som en stor militær leder som følger i fotsporene til Karl Martell for å gjenreise tradisjonell maskulinitet. Hva tenker du om det?

Personer som Karl Martell og Jan III Sobieski utviste personlig mot ved å møte tungt bevæpnede fiendtlige militære styrker på en slagmark der begge parter var innstilt på at dette var krig. Anders Behring Breivik massakrerte ubevæpnede sivilister fra sin egen nasjon som var totalt uforberedt på strid. Han er bare en feig slakter. Tradisjonell maskulinitet handlet også om å beskytte sine kvinner og barn, ikke slakte dem ned for fote.

Da jeg var 14-15 år, som de yngste ofrene på Utøya, deltok jeg på medlemsmøter i ungdomsorganisasjonen til Sosialistisk Venstreparti, som er til venstre for AUF. Breivik ville også drept meg da jeg var på deres alder.

Er det riktig at Breiviks forestillingsverden er vanlig blant antiislamister?

Flere såkalte ekspertvitner, som Terje Emberland, Mattias Gardell, Lars Gule og Øyvind Strømmen, har gått langt i å antyde at Breiviks forestillingsverden er ganske vanlig blant antiislamister og islamkritikere. Dette er med respekt å melde det rene vås. Derimot må det være lov til å påpeke at for eksempel Gardell åpent har samarbeidet med representanter for den islamske jihadistiske terrororganisasjonen Hamas og at Anders Behring Breivik gjentatte ganger har uttrykt sin store respekt for nettopp islamske jihadistiske terrororganisasjoner.

Breivik blir rutinemessig omtalt som antiislamist, spesielt blant de som ikke liker slike mennesker. Det er imidlertid klart ut ifra både hans manifest og hans kommentarer fra rettssaken at Breivik nærer stor beundring for islamske jihadistiske terrorister som terrornettverket al-Qaida, som han selv ser som en rollemodell for sine voldshandlinger. Tatt i betraktning av at muslimske jihadistiske terrorrister finner inspirasjon for sine handlinger i islamske religiøse skrifter som Koranen kan man godt argumentere for at en av Breiviks indirekte inspirasjonskilder for hans voldshandlinger var Koranen.

Hans forestillinger om å bli “martyr” gjennom massedrap er sterkt preget av islamske forestillinger, noe han åpent innrømmer i manifestet. Med sin fascinasjon for vold, terrorisme og videoer av halshugginger utviser Breivik er så tydelig slektskap med muslimske jihadister at det ikke bør forundre noen dersom han konverterer til islam i fangenskap.

Man behøver absolutt ikke være gal for å være bekymret over følgene av dagens innvandringspolitikk i mange vestlige land, som kan omgjøre innfødte europeere til et mindretall i en rekke av sine egne land i løpet av få år.

Breiviks eventuelle galskap finnes blant annet i hans forskrudde forestillinger om Knights Templar, som mest sannsynlig ikke eksisterer. Han snakket mye om KT til politiet og de første psykiaterne og justerte dette kun etter at han ble erklært sinnssyk. Man kan være uenig med de første rettsoppnevnte psykiaterne, Torgeir Husby og Synne Sørheim, men faktum er at organisasjonen Knights Templar fremstår som svært virkelig og sentral i de delene av manifestet Breivik mest sannsynligvis har skrevet selv. Dette er slett ikke perifere ideer for ham.

Breivik presenterte seg selv i sitt manifest som “judge, jury and executioner”, dommer, jury og bøddel. Det var til dels slik han faktisk oppførte seg under sitt massemord. Dette er mest sannsynlig hentet fra en tegneserie kalt Judge Dredd, som også er blitt filmatisert. Anders Behring Breivik indentifiserer seg altså med en oppdiktet tegneseriefigur. Noen observatører vil mene at dette kan sees på som en tegn på alvorlig realitetsbrist fra en person som tydeligvis har problemer med å skille mellom sin egen oppdiktede verden og den virkelige verden.

Flere av hans uniformer og beskrivelser av Knights Templar ritualer fremstår som tegneserieaktige, for ikke å si klovnaktige. De ville påkalt latter om man ikke visste hvor mange mennesker han har drept. Hans beskrivelser av hvor mange prosent livskraft han har kan ha vært hentet fra dataspill, der slike er vanlige. Måten manifestet lister opp ulike typer våpen, ammunisjon og utstyr minner om utstyrslister i dataspill som World of Warcraft.

Her må det påpekes at de aller fleste som spiller onlinespill som World of Warcraft overhodet ikke blir voldelige av dette. Jeg har selv yngre slektninger som har spilt WoW mye og ikke ville skadet en flue. Det kan derimot tenkes at en person som allerede har uklare skiller mellom virkelighet og fiksjon kan påvirkes mer.

Jeg kan forsikre om at det ikke er vanlig i antiislamske miljøer at man dikter opp en tegneserieverden der man er dommer, jury og bøddel, leder for en ikke-eksisterende pan-europeisk terrororganisasjon som skal sprenge atomreaktorer i lufta, poserer for politiet i undertøyet etter å ha slaktet ned dusinvis av mennesker, skriver manifest om sine godterivaner og sin søsters påståtte kjønnssykdommer eller tror at man vil bli erklært helgen av Den katolske kirke for å ha massakrert ubevæpnede tenåringer. Dette er utpreget bisarre vrangforestillinger som antyder det vi gjerne omtaler som galskap, i alle fall i folkelig og muligens også i medisinsk forstand.

Tror du at Breivik er sinnssyk?

Det kan jeg ikke si med sikkerhet. Jeg har aldri møtt ham. Som sagt mener jeg at det finnes en god del elementer i hans manifest og uttalelser etterpå som kan antyde galskap i klinisk forstand. Samtidig er det ingen tvil om at han utviste kalkulert brutalitet med sine terrorhandlinger 22. juli 2011. En del av hans uttalelser både før, under og etterpå kan dessuten antyde at han visste at det var virkelige mennesker han massakrerte.

Jeg noterer meg at flere av de som har vitnet under rettssaken, og enda flere som ikke har det, har vært nokså kategoriske i sine meninger om hvorvidt Breivik er tilregnelig eller ikke. Det kan oppfattes som arrogant å komme med bastante konklusjoner om en person man aldri har møtt. Litt for mange gjør nettopp dette etter mitt syn. Jeg skal derfor prøve å ha ydmykhet nok til å ikke gi en klar konklusjon på hva som er galt med Breivik.

Jeg vil likevel si følgende. Jeg arbeidet selv med personer som har høytfungerende autisme eller Aspergers syndrom da Breiviks forferdelige massakre fant sted. Aspergers er en sekkebetegnelse for personer med svært ulik karakter, men i den grad det finnes en typisk Aspergers person minner han gjerne mer om nordmannen Magnus Carlsen, for øyeblikket den høyest rangerte sjakkspilleren i verden, enn han gjør om Breivik.

Jeg har ikke utdannelse innenfor psykiatri, men jeg har en del praksis innenfor feltet ved å ha jobbet av og på ved lukket akuttmottak på psykiatrisk avdeling ved Ålesund sjukehus over flere år. Det innebærer blant annet å arbeide med personer som har psykose eller paranoid schizofreni. En av de tingene jeg lærte ved å jobbe med dette er at det kan være fullt mulig for en person å ha over gjennomsnittlig intelligens og være både kalkulerende og manipulerende samtidig som man er rablende gal. Menneskesinnet er uhyre komplisert.

Jeg vet ikke hvilken diagnose som er riktig for Breivik og skal avstå fra å komme med en konklusjon, men det er interessant at så mange av landets ledende eksperter finner det vanskelig å komme med en definitiv diagnose.

Kanskje skyldes det faktum at det finnes to motstridende rapporter ikke mest at ett sett av psykiatere, som de av pressen grovt utskjelte Torgeir Husby og Synne Sørheim, er idioter og de andre har helt rett. Kanskje skyldes det at Breivik objektivt sett er meget vanskelig å klassifisere. Selv erfarne rettspsykiatere som Agnar Aspaas og Terje Tørrisen innrømmer at de aldri har vært borti noen helt som Breivik. Han er atypisk selv for de atypiske.

Anders Behring Breivik sprenger ikke bare skalaen for det normale, han sprenger til og med skalaen for det abnormale. Han viser noen ganger trekk som kan antyde paranoia og sinnssykdom, men samtidig er han ikke typisk for paranoid schizofreni, og heller ingen typisk person med Aspergers syndrom. De fleste slike mennesker skader eller dreper ingen. Han kan ha flere av de foreslåtte diagnosene eller ingen av dem.

Vi ønsker gjerne at det skal være klare skiller mellom kalkulert ondskap og irrasjonell galskap, men kanskje finnes det i virkeligheten ikke alltid så klare skillelinjer som vi skulle ønske. Noen ganger kan det ene flyte over i det andre. Breivik kan være et slikt tilfelle, det er vanskelig å si sikkert.

Jeg er ikke nødvendigvis enig i alt rettspsykiaterne har sagt, men det er liten tvil om at en person med såpass utviklede voldsfantasier som har slaktet ned dusinvis av mennesker uten å vise det minste tegn til anger kan utgjøre en fare for sine omgivelser også i fremtiden. Om han erklæres tilregnelig eller utilregnelig er etter mitt syn av mindre betydning enn at han holdes innesperret for resten av sitt liv. Jeg tror det vil dypt krenke rettsfølelsen til stort sett alle nålevende nordmenn dersom Breivik slipper ut igjen på permisjon om få år.

Er det noe du savner belyst under rettssaken?

Jeg har ikke selv vært tilstede under rettssaken, men mitt inntrykk er at aktoratet ved statsadvokatene Inga Bejer Engh og Svein Holden har gjort en god jobb. Politiet ser også ut til å ha gjort en grei jobb i en komplisert sak, i alle fall når det gjelder etterforskningen etterpå. Hva de gjorde før og under angrepene må andre vurdere.

Det er tidligere blitt hevdet i massemediene at kun få måneder før angrepene, i mars 2011, ringte en mann til regjeringens sentralbord i Oslo og snakket om et manifest og om å skyte unge AUF-ere. Personen skjelte visstnok ut regjeringen, statsminister Jens Stoltenberg samt tidligere statsminister Gro Harlem Brundtland.

Dersom dette er sant er det to muligheter. Den ene er at dette ikke var Breivik, den andre at det var ham. Hvis det ikke var Breivik er det selvsagt svært interessant, men mest sannsynlig var det ham. Hvis man skal stole på pressen, og det kan man ikke alltid, så har Breivik både bekreftet og avkreftet at han ringte inn denne samtalen.

Breivik klarte å gjennomføre et stort angrep uten å bli oppdaget på forhånd, men hvis det er riktig at han ringte inn til regjeringen bare få uker før bomben og snakket om å skyte AUF-ere er dette en meget bisarr oppførsel av en person som for enhver pris ikke ville bli oppdaget av myndighetene. Han løp da en viss risiko for å bli avslørt. Det kan antyde at han ikke alltid har vært så mentalt balansert som han forsøker å hevde. Han sprakk tydeligvis ganske grundig minst en gang. Det undrer meg litt at dette ikke er blitt fokusert mer på. Episoden er ikke nødvendigvis av avgjørende betydning, men bør være relevant for å belyse Breiviks psyke og sinnstilstand.

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


Anonymous said...

Time to stand up and get out public Fjordman! Dont hide here in small eccochambers.

bilbo said...

possibly the first, comprehensive assessment of breivik and his tiny twisted world.

whitney said...

Fjordman is credit to the entire anti-islamic community. I wonder if this will prove prophetic,

" it should surprise no one if he converts to Islam while behind bars."

Heikki Polojärvi said...

I have noted Fjordman's objectivity, thoroughness of his knowledge of the issues he writes about, and his skill in writing.

I very rarely give praise to anyone, but frojdman is a candle in the dark.

Anonymous said...

This is the most accurate, unbiased assessment I have heard or seen so far. Many times during the trial it has frustrated me how people have overlooked key points or argued practically in favour of Breivik. I would have loved to have seen his reaction in court to this, from someone he saw as an inspiration, showing his attention seeking habits and flaws. I think this testimony should be made more public! Even psychiatrists are strongly disagreeing over him; maybe there should be a new Breivik-disorder, and the Wikipedia terrorist is quite fitting!

Anders H said...

Retracting to the internett, answering hypothetical questions in a quasi intellectual way for a group of uneducated readers ... true manhood, Peder.

Anonymous said...

I think Fjordman would make an excellent statesman, although that path often leads to the murky areas away from pure academia into the realm of the politician. Perhaps that is his true calling, however.

laine said...

I also thought Fjordman stood out even amid the din of the Internet for his intelligent and measured analysis of leftist extremism masquerading as "normal" or "centrist". As just one example of leftist extremism and its incoherence: ejecting whites and/or Christians from black and Muslim countries is right with no accusations made of racism or intolerance, whereas white Christian countries must open themselves up to indiscriminate and outright hostile immigrants while any objection by the natives gets labeled abhorrent, racist, intolerant etc.

Anonymous said...

What is the point of publishing this here anyway if Fjordman did not want to witness in court. Is he afraid to witness in court?

Anonymous said...

Fjordman: you know perfectly well that it is not true that your identity was not known when you contacted the police. VG knew who you where, as Anders Giæver writes in this article (in norwegian) http://www.vg.no/nyheter/meninger/artikkel.php?artid=10097208

Anonymous said...

I took the time to read the first psychiatric evaluation of Breivik. Well, actually just the summary. 40 pages in norwegian is my limit. (Thanks to Hanne, my Norwegian ex-girlfriend!) From that read, I concluded that Breivik does not live on the same planet as I do. Not even close. I don't know if he's criminally insane, but he is definitely insane.

The texts from Fjordman are on the other hand sane. Extremely sane. The texts are well founded, there is research to back it up and experience from the muslim world. So what can the mainstream media do to retort? Well, character assasination! What else do they have as an option?

I look forward to every new chronicle from Fjordman's keyboard. Language is very apt as well. Not seen to often these days. Four cheers from Sweden. Broderfolk! (As I child I learned to swim on a trip to Norway. Kristiansand I think it was. Lovely country Norway. Beautiful landscape and beautiful and nice people.)

Anonymous said...

I think it's funny that both you and Breivik interview yourself. It is a weird form of writing I haven't seen that much of before. Maybe you two are more alike than you think?

Anonymous said...

I've never liked Fjordman's writings
-the way he presents himself is too self-centered
-often black-white thinking (all/nothing)
-his illogical view on legal issues
-his approach to the manifest is rather odd. I read it and found it authentic and logical and so did Jussi Jalonen, war historian/reasearcher Finland
-he grinds on irrelevat details and presents himself as a victime
-Fjordman can't know what anti-islamists really think
-Knights Templars will only be seen if they strike on attacks
-he condemns Breivik basically to hell without having met him-not impressive

Fjordman does not dicuss how Breivik tried to fix the problme for many years inprior to the attacks.

Vortac said...

This is the most comprehensive analysis of Breivik mental health so far and a very good description of the Breivik case entirely. Such articles push GoV far ahead of any mainstream media.

Dymphna said...

The question re Fjordman's not wanting to appear in court is disingenuous to say the least.

The press in Norway has demonized Peder from the beginning and the attacks have been brutally unfair. He's not physically safe in nice, nice Norway, as is surely obvious to anyone who has read the inaccurate, sadistic reports by government-paid 'journalists'.

The more I see what passes for journalistic integrity in Norway, the sorrier I feel for the average Norwegian. The real focus should have been on obscene actions of the press taking pictures of Breivik as he walked down the shoreline "finishing off" his victims. Why did they not land and attempt to stop him? Here, they would have been charged as acessories to his crime - which they are.

I have never seen less due diligence in searching for and publicizing the police failures re Utoya than the Norwegian press displayed in the last year. Sure, make cartoons and call names, but do research on their own? Nope.

That appears to be what happens when the government owns the press.

Anonymous said...

The left refuse to engage in honest debate. Fjordman, and others like him and the writers here at GoV, speak out against the deprivation of rights, of the left's demand all our rights be sublimated to a backwards, medieval cult, that actually are the ones guilty of what the left like to claim Christians are guilty of. The left refuse to address that fact, there is zero consistency. It's the reason why the majority of the people, as time goes on, rejects the agenda of the left, and demand sanity be restored.

I must also agree with Dymphna, when one sees how bloggers and even conservative citizens, pundits, and politicians are being threatened with, the violence, their families lives at risk, their careers, it would be insane not to take precautions to prevent becoming a further target. He's in my thoughts and prayers.

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, but were Fjordman's testimony presented in court...

Judge: Large organisms of indiscriminate sex of the jury, I ask you now to consider the written testimony of one Peder Jensen, pseudonym Fjordman. Unfortunately his original text was in Islamaphobian. Luckily a crack team of social scientists volunteered to become linguists to decode this document. It says here that their translational efforts encompassed a period of forty-eight seconds...


Judge: Forty-eight seconds? Surely that should be forty-eight hours, yes, Prosecutor? Prosecutor! Bailiff, rouse him!

Prosecutor: [Lifts head from court-supplied pillow] Wha..? Oh, yeah, definitely! Forty-eight hours![returns to slumber]

Judge: So you see, jury, you must treat this labour with the utmost gravity. I shall now read...Why, it all translates to one phrase: mea culpa!

[the prosecutor is roused again]

Prosecutor: Waha!

Judge: I'm sorry to tell you that you've lost. Fjordman, not Breivik, is the culprit--isn't that right, jury? You see, they agree! We will need someone to assist with bringing Fjordman in, however. I assume you have a lynching-rope handy?

Prosecutor: Why, of course, your honor!

Judge: And a pitchfork?

Prosecutor: Euh...

Judge: Not to worry: the Justice Department always keeps a spare ready. See its chairperson on your way out.

Anonymous said...

Anders H

Prolix may be your forte, insight, well that’s another matter. With just 21 words you revealed so much…just not about the intended target. That superior perspicacity you seem so proud of could do with some better illumination, perhaps an upgrade to a 40 watt bulb might improve things; it’s always best to read with the lights ‘ON’

To Anonymous @ 4:17 PM

Mr Jensen clearly laid out the reasons for his refusal to proceed with the charade taking place in Norway right now…or didn’t you read that bit?

Given the degree of vitriol and venom emanating from the media and their choir masters in the ruling orthodoxy, so entrenched in Norwegian society, Mr. Jensen has every reason to be leery of engaging with the circus in Oslo.

As always with the left, the narrative is kept quite simple. By smears and subtle innuendo, the measure of just what they say, always and inevitably boils down to just 2 words -“SHUT UP”

I suspect the purpose of such high intellects who deign to grace us with their presence, is to discourage the unwary wanderer, who by chance has come across this blog, from taking on-board any un-approved thoughts…thought crimes being the most criminal of all human failings in our sophisticated age.

an “uneducated reader”

Dymphna said...

Norwegian TV was particularly vicious last year. Anyone who saw
"Fjordland" won't quickly forget it:

Humor in a Totalitarian Democracy

The REAL paraplegics were paraded out by the press to say they didn't mind their physical humiliations to be used against the fjordmonster, in fact they were proud to be of use.

Ham-handed? Oh indeed. Heavy falls the club on those who get out of line, until finally one of them goes off the rails and those in charge become frantic to find a scapegoat. Totalitarian democracies excel at ferreting out scapegoats to take the pressure off the real culprit: the severe strictures of Norwegian culture.

Even now I'll bet that fine Nordic intelligence is being put to use figuring out how to identify the 5 year-old Breiviks of the future, before they can do any harm.

Pediatric forensic psychiatry will be a growth industry and rowdy little boys will be carted off for in-patient treatment - unless they are the children of the elite, that is.

Parental authority has long since been trumped by state authority. God help those boys - and boys they will be. Girls simply aren't that aggressive, no matter how the fems try to draw it differently.

You know and I know the next Breivik won't be a woman.
If you can judge a culture by its humor, then "Heine Fjordland" tells you far more than you want to know about the dark recesses of the Norwegian cultural soul. I'll bet the creators of that 'comedy' had absolutely no idea how completely they were revealing the Norwegian Left's lack of dignity and integrity for the rest of the world to see.

Anonymous said...

"Also, it is doubtful that such a hypothetical organization, if it had existed, would have been particularly interested in an individual without higher education, military experience, practical expertise or a political network of any significant value to them."

Strange after the fact assertion from Fjordman as Breivik obviously would have been a prime candidate as an asset for such a hypothetical organization, if it had existed. Breivik's bares no resemblance to the portrait of a delusional incapacitated cripple in the actuality of his actions.

Jolie Rouge

Anonymous said...

Peder is afraid for his life, this is why I cannot trust this "confession", nor any of his future articles. Even if he agreed with Breivik and supported him 100% or maybe even 20%, he would not be able to write about it now that his identity was revealed and he is closely monitored by the leftist police state.

Mr. Jensen, I'm afraid you have been compromised.

Anonymous said...

I really think that this is something who should be presented to the court! it was well written and interesting!

Henrik R Clausen said...

Peder is afraid for his life, this is why I cannot trust this "confession", nor any of his future articles.


Just who might constitute a threat to his life? Leftwing extremists? Islamists? In any of those cases, such threats would constitute a confirmation of what he writes.

Genuine democracy requires the discipline not to threaten political opponents with violence or even death. That is one of the most urgent issues to work on in these days.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant text ! Fjordman has no doubt been gifted with a reason clear as crystal.

About Mattias Gardell and other swedish hardcore left wingers there are much information to be found on the magazine Axess' editor Johan Lundbergs blog. A couple of days ago Lundberg wrote about Mattias Gardells collaboration with the stalinist "Kommunistiska Partiet". Gardell visited the KP summercamp last year.

www.axess.se/blog/ - post titled "DN-journalist föreläser på stalinistiskt läger".

Or: Google "Mattias Gardell" + "sommarläger".

/Benge R.

laine said...

"Anonymous said...

I think it's funny that both you and Breivik interview yourself. It is a weird form of writing I haven't seen that much of before. Maybe you two are more alike than you think?"

Anonymous, you left out that both Breivik and Jensen speak Norwegian, and they're both men! They probably both wear shoes too! Oh my gosh, the similarity is just uncanny now that you've made us think about it with your "brilliant" observation!

Dymphna said...

On questions and answers-

Fjordman didn't create the questions he answered. The list of queries was sent to him by Breivik's lawyers. The latter made up those questions and their content tell us a lot about the people who made a circus out of an appalling tragedy.

Anonymous said...

Peder Jensen:
Regarding your analysis of the (possible) psychiatric condition(s) of the mad slaugther, ABB:
You should avoided writing those parts, simply because: Peder Jensen (as you yourself is pinpointing in your own text): Your'e NOT a certified person in the field of psychiatry, you do NOT know the whole case and so on. I think, by doing so, you are only weakening the other parts of your argumentation. I find your writing both logical, well funded and so on. And yes, as a victim of the press's jugdement, almost like a character murder, your'e entitled to defend yourself. But then, you must start the inevitable process of self-analyzing: Is there something in my writing I have to reconsider. Am I misunderstood. Is any of my text being misused (not by ABB, but others). This way, you would probably get the possibility to restore some of your position, I'm shure !

Dymphna said...

@ anon 7:37-

Of course Fjordman is going to give his opinion as to whether or not Breivik is a raving loon. Besides, people want to know what he thinks.

All those concerned with this horror, and those who have been forced to be concerned with it whether they wanted to be or not have opinions regarding this mass murderer's mental and emotional state.

The West is a psychologized culture. We speak in every terms about the mentally afflicted as a matter of course.

If you've ever studied the intense, creepy and neurotic political in-fighting that goes into creating those Diagnostic Standards Manuals psychiatrists use, you'd have more respect for your own judgment and less concern for the pronouncements of the exalted oracles who make their living in forensic psychiatry.

The two teams of "expert" forensic psychiatrists came to different conclusions about this mass murderer, and they did so for sound political reasons. Should the state need some other conclusion to be reached so they can do whatever they decide to do with Breivik, well easy-peasy: call in yet another group of "experts" to pronounce yet another diagnosis for this grandiose, deluded and chillingly self-absorbed person.

In the last year three psychiatrists have written to tell us their 'take' on ABB. Each reached different conclusions because, as one put it, we're all working with limited knowledge of the person who did this.

What I find fascinating is the averted faces & silence when it comes to a forensic linguistic analysis of that 'manifesto'. I'd like to hear several analysts debate whether or not ABB could have written all the sections he claims to have authored. Or are pieces of it authored by a native American English speaker?

The lack of interest by either his defense or the prosecution speaks volumes about their own motives here.

Anonymous said...

Use of neologisms might indicate that you are mad
In the court today experts Synne Sørheim and Torgeir Husby clung to the opinion that Breivik has designed a series of words and that these words are neologisms and evidence of his psychosis. Examples that they pulled out of their report were:"national Darwinist," "suicidal Marxist" and "suicidal humanism."
- Neologisms are self-constructed words that the patient uses to make sense to psychosis [for å gi mening til psykoser] and which are not known by others. We have analyzed this and included in the report words that are unfamiliar to us. By inquiring what Breivik has meant with the words we find that they are one-sided rooted in the observed person's psychotic world, she said.

Anonymous said...

Skammelig at man som norsk statsborger skal måtte flykte ut av landet av frykt for politiske forfølgelser...i gamle Norge.?Skammelig.Og skremmende. Håper inderlig at det tar slutt.Trodde det var noe som hørte diktaturer til..hmmm...
Alle gode tanker og ønsker fra Oslo by.Sånt går bare ikke an.Dessverre gjør det det. Hold føttene varme og hodet kaldt.:-)God Bless.

Baron Bodissey said...

A Danish reader has kindly provided a translation of the previous comment, for which reason I have gone ahead and approved it.


"Shameful that as a Norwegian citizen yo should have to flee the country for fear of political persecution ... in old Norway.? Shameful. And frightening. I sincerely hope that it stops. I thought it was something that belonged to dictatorships .. hmmm ...

"All good thoughts and wishes from the city of Oslo. Things like that are just not possible. Unfortunately, there it is. Keep your feet warm and your head cool. :-) God Bless."