Fjordman, Population Migration and Cultural Change

John R. Houk

© February 20, 2016

Apparently one of my Counterjihad writing heroes has given up on maintaining his once anonymous pseudonym as his nom de plume. He actually authors this essay with his given Norwegian name - Peder Jensen. In case you are not aware Jensen/Fjordman wrote under an anonymous pen name because his writings and essays are considered controversial by Left Wing Multiculturalists and Muslim Apologists. He explored themes considered hate-speech by European standards not necessarily because he condemned Islam (as I do) but he exposed the harsh realities of the theopolitical religious cult that counters the myth that Islam is Peace. Indeed, shortly after Norwegian neo-Nazi terrorist Anders Breivik committed an act of slaughter against a youth camp on a Norwegian island of mostly teenagers combining fun and ensconcement in slanted Left political ideology. These kids were not Muslims (for the most part) and neither was Breivik.

Brevik’s connection to Fjordman was circumstantial enough that the Norwegian press roasted Fjordman as the provocateur that inspired Breivik’ massacre. Indeed, Europe’s Multiculturalist politicians used the massacre as a tool to shut down criticism of Islam. Here are some thoughts I had on the Breivik’s Utøya massacre in relation to Fjordman back in 2011:

Breivik put together this 1500 page or so manuscript of which very little was actually original. Breivik borrowed from numerous notable anti-Jihadist writers to extrapolate a warped vision of Crusader Christians modeled after his interpretation of the Knights Templar. Breivik’s warped version of Christianity was to be the uniting symbolism to bring in a New European Order that would force Muslim immigrants to leave. The problem with Breivik’s New European Order was his plan adopted terrorist tactics against the ruling elite or to make the ruling elite to look bad to inspire ordinary Europeans to rise up to throw Liberal-Multiculturalist ruling elites out. Thus Norway experienced the slaughter of seventy or so Norwegians of young and old as part of a plan to terrorize the New European Order into existence.

Breivik plagiarized many anti-Jihadist writers; however it is apparent the essayist Fjordman was his favorite by the large amount of the copy and paste citations. Breivik’s naming of literary heroes has placed Fjordman as a potential favorite target to not only blame for the Norway Massacre but also to possibly indict him for criminal activity.

Is that crazy or what?

I learned in an Andrew Bostom article that the police interviewed and confiscated his computer. It looks to me like the persecution of free speech is beginning to take on a police state motif in Norway. Hmm … It could be Breivik’s massacre might actually lead to a test of free speech between free speech limiting Multiculturalists and the few Liberty-minded European Conservatives that exist. … (Fjordman the Victim; By John R. Houk; SlantRight.com; 8/11/11)

The police state methods of blaming Fjordman/Peder Jensen caused his anonymous status to be taken away. In case you are unaware, being a Counterjihadist in Europe places a target on your head for assassination Jihad-style on the European continent. Muslim immigration was already rampant and linked to many crimes circa the year 2011. NOW it is even worse. Muslims don’t even try to hide their proclivity to rape European women and murder Jews.

Well, that is a bit of a tedious introduction to a Fjordman/Jensen essay about migrations to Europe. The essay is rather brief and to the astonishment of Multiculturalists the theme is more akin to how migrations change the original culture of an area inundated by migration. It is however quite obvious the Muslim influx occurring at present in 21st century Europe is the cultural changing event that concerns Fjordman. It is a bit fascinating. Please leave a comment about if Fjordman’s concerns is a wake-up call for you or not. Especially my American brethren that have not yet experienced the same level of Muslim societal chaos that Europeans are feeling NOW. Obama and American Leftists apparently are ignoring Europe’s Muslim problems even in the same way European politicians are so doing in the name of Multiculturalism.

JRH 2/20/16

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

The New Migration Period

By Peder Jensen (Fjordman)

February 14, 2016

Gates of Vienna

Posted by Baron Bodissey

The following essay was first published in the regional daily Stavanger Aftenblad in Norway. Parts of the text were taken from Peder Jensen’s (Fjordman’s) book Vitne til vanvidd. This book is now available for a Scandinavian audience in Norwegian as both e-book and printed book. For a limited period of time, the printed book can also be ordered signed by the author. A shorter version of this book, which deals with the Anders Behring Breivik case and Muslim immigration to Europe, will later be published in English with the title Witness to Madness.

Many thanks to Liberty DK for the translation.

[Photo caption: Cramped seating on the train to Dhaka in Bangladesh. Population growth in the South is so enormous that even if the region managed to send 25 million people to Europe per year, its population would still be increasing. FOTO: Sheng Li, Reuters / Scanpix ]

It is totally unrealistic to solve social problems through the migration of billions of people. Most social problems in southern countries must be resolved locally.

Before the Neolithic Revolution began 10,000-12,000 years ago, we were all hunter-gatherers. The number of people on this planet at that time has been estimated to between five and fifteen million human beings. A single major city such as Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul, Karachi, Mexico City, Lagos, Mumbai or Cairo now has more inhabitants than this.

The global population reached one billion people for the first time around the year 1800. From the time of the Neanderthals, it took all of the Earth’s peoples hundreds of thousands of years to achieve this population size. Since the Industrial Revolution, the global population has, over the past two hundred years, grown dramatically.

“The world’s population is now growing at around one Roman Empire every year”.

In the coming three decades, it is expected that Africa’s population alone will increase by more than one billion people. Combined with a huge population growth, modern means of transport are now creating the largest and fastest human migrations the world has ever experienced since our species first came into existence.

Population estimates for the Roman Empire at the beginning of our era range from 45 million to over 100 million people. A relatively common estimate is 60-80 million. Various estimates suggested a global population growth of between 70 and 80 million in 2015. The world population is thus growing at a rate of roughly one Roman Empire every single year. Today’s migrations are much larger and faster than the Migration Period we associate with the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

“The population growth in Egypt in less than a generation is thus larger than the population of all the Nordic countries combined.”

200,000 more per day

Let us stipulate that the global population increased by 73 million people in 2015. This corresponds to a global population growth of over 6 million people per month, around 1.4 million people per week, nearly 200,000 per day, more than 8327 per hour, almost 139 per minute and 2.3 per second. If you spend 30 seconds on grabbing a cold drink in the fridge, the planet’s population will have grown with perhaps 69 people during this time. If you spend half an hour on eating lunch, there will be around 4,164 more human beings on Earth after your lunch break.

[Photo caption: The population of Nigeria is now approximately 182 million, compared with 89 million fifteen years ago, an increase of approximately 2.5 percent per year (CIA, The World Factbook). And four out of ten would move to a Western country if the opportunity arises. George Osodi, AP / Scanpix]

In the year 2050, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is expected to have joined Nigeria and Ethiopia as one of the world’s ten most populous countries. Despite stagnating population numbers in Europe and East Asia, analysts expect that the world population will increase by billions of people during this century. Demographers believe that the Earth’s population may grow to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion people by 2100, perhaps more. Africa’s population could grow tremendously to between 3.5 and 5.1 billion people. By 2050, it is estimated that four out of ten of the world’s children could be an African.

In 1897, there were 9.7 million Egyptians. In 1996, Egypt’s population numbered 59 million people. The country surpassed 87 million in 2014 and could have 137 million inhabitants in 2050. This huge population growth contributes to political instability. Between them, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland had, at the beginning of 2015, a population of about 26 million people, including recent immigrants. The population growth of a single Arab country in less than one generation is thus larger than the population of all the Scandinavian and Nordic countries combined.

A large Asian country such as China has a bigger population than the entire European continent, including Russia. The same goes for India. Bangladesh and Pakistan grew by around 5.6 million people in 2014. The population growth of just two Muslim countries in a single year is thus large enough to overwhelm a small European nation. With its current demography, Pakistan will reach a quarter of a billion inhabitants within a generation and still keep on growing. Meanwhile, Pakistani immigrants to the West are sometimes referred to as a vulnerable “minority,” almost as if they were a rare rhino on the brink of extinction.

“A small rise in prosperity in the global South will not necessarily lead to less migration.”

Europe as a destination

Europeans are a global minority. We have always been a minority, but today, the European share of the world’s population is smaller than it has ever been in recorded history.

Let us stipulate that at least six billion people on the planet enjoy a lower standard of living than the average person does in Germany, Norway or the Netherlands. If just 9% of six billion people want to move to Europe or other Western countries, this would amount to 540 million migrants. This is more than the total number of citizens across the entire European Union (EU).

Polls show that four out of ten people in Nigeria would move to a Western country if given the opportunity to do so. If 40% of Nigeria’s fast-growing population want to migrate to the West, this would amount to at least 73 million potential migrants from a single African country, which is regarded as Africa’s economic superpower. Many of the world’s southern regions are now on the move, even in countries where there is no war. A small rise in prosperity in the global South will not necessarily lead to less migration. On the contrary, international migration could increase even further because more people have enough money to travel.

If Africa were to send 100 million people to Europe over the next five years, Africa’s population would still continue growing. Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan also experience a large population growth. If the Islamic world and Africa were to send a quarter of a billion migrants to Europe over the next ten years, these regions would still increase in population.

“There is no other viable alternative”

Could lead to collapse

These figures are intended to illustrate population growth. In practice, the number of migrants will not be this great. Yet the mere fact that this is theoretically possible should be cause for concern. In coming generations the Islamic world and Africa could, in principle, send a constant flow of migrants ten times larger than what we are seeing now. Even if they did so, this would not solve fundamental social problems in the Islamic world or in Africa. It would, however, probably cause a collapse of the social fabric in many European countries.

It is totally unrealistic to solve social problems through the migration of billions of people. Most social problems in southern countries must be resolved locally. There is no other viable alternative.

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

____________________

Fjordman, Population Migration and Cultural Change

John R. Houk

© February 20, 2016

____________________

The New Migration Period

History of the Counterjihad

A Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad

Part I, Introduction

Part II, Conferences

Part III(a), The Transatlantic Counterjihad at the OSCE

Part III(b), The Transatlantic Counterjihad at the OSCE (cont.)

Part IV, The Rosetta Stone Projects

Part V, Official Opposition to the Transatlantic Counterjihad

Part VI, Unofficial Opposition to the Counterjihad

Part VII, Observations and General Conclusions

Gates of Vienna homepage

Meet Fjordman: Europe’s Most Infamous Anti-Islamist Writer

I wish I could see more bloggers post about the contributions of Fjordman exposing Islam’s anti-Western nature. Dave the Sage does this on the blog The Conservative Citizen.

JRH 2/11/15 [updated 6/15/16]

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

Meet Fjordman: Europe’s Most Infamous Anti-Islamist Writer

By DAVE THE SAGE

February 1, 2015

The Conservative Citizen

“The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because of victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today nobody can find in them any ” social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influence and the decaying native Christian churches are concerned. There are such “social values” today in Europe, America, and Australia only because during those thousand years the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do, that is, to beat back the Moslem invader. It is of course worth while for sociologists to discuss the effect of this European militarism on “social values,” but only if they first clearly realize and formulate the fact that if the European militarism had not been able to defend itself against and to overcome the militarism of Asia and Africa, there would have been no “social values” of any kind in our world today, and no sociologists to discuss them.” -Theodore Roosevelt, “Social Values and National Existence”, Papers and Proceedings of the American Sociological Society

The writer and author Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, better known as Fjordman, is a European treasure and a near extinct rarity unfortunately. I have admired and followed him for many years.

He’s been an inspiration to me personally as a writer and essayist. In fact, his book Defeating Eurabia was the catalyst for my own book No Apologies which will be released on Amazon for the Kindle this spring.

Fjordman has paid the price for having the courage to stand up for what is right and true. It is incredible, that in today’s Europe, one can hardly dare to stand up ones culture and country without undergoing intense scrutiny, harassment, and sometimes even persecution from the authorities. Not to mention risking death at the hands of the Muslims hordes who those same authorities have allowed to overrun the borders and flood the continent in their millions.

The goal of European and Western survivalists — and that’s what we are, it is our very survival that is at stake — should not be to “fix” the ideology of Multiculturalism but to be mentally prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve. What went wrong with our civilization, and how can we survive and hopefully regenerate, despite being an increasingly vulnerable minority in an often hostile world? - Fjordman

There was once a time when the countries and nations of Europe fought ferociously and bravely against the various barbarian waves that sought to conquer it. Those days are apparently only mere memories now in the minds of those who read dusty history books and no longer part of the mentality of a civilization that is under unending racial, cultural, and religious assault. One would think that the literal descendants of the vast hordes of fierce warriors who vigorously attacked and eventually helped destroy the great and once powerful Roman Empire would learn from what occurred in their own past, on their own continent, by their own forefathers.

It is heartbreaking to watch the slow and steady suicide of a once proud and powerful race, people, continent, and civilization. They have become utterly, and possibly fatally, infected with the deadly diseases of progressivism; multiculturalism, atheism, socialism, tolerance, diversity, and political correctness. Europe has been stubborn in clinging to these discredited ‘isms’ that undermine the very foundations of the very things that once made them great and powerful Peoples and Empires.

The two great European civil wars of the last century seems to have so weakened and disillusioned the cradle of Western Civilization that the infection of progressivism was able to get a stranglehold on its victim. It hasn’t yet let go yet as it has swept from country to country across the continent with barely a whimper of dissent from the population.

Fjordman is an admirable exception to that rule and has for many years been a forceful voice for the preservation of European civilization and against the Islamization of Europe. After the 2011 Norway attacks by Anders Behring Breivik (see Is Anders Behring Breivik the Nordic Che Guevara?) Peder was ‘outed’ as Fjordman (a dangerous thing in Europe), lost his job, came under intense scrutiny from the government, and had his personal computer confiscated by the police. He is currently in exile from his native Norway and has paid the price for speaking out for the truth.

If you are not acquainted with the writings of Fjordman and his essays then I humbly suggest you take the time to explore his passionate and intellectual defense of Europe, common sense, and the preservation of Western Civilization. An up to date collection of his writings, the Fjordman Files, can be viewed here.

A little bit about my future plans. At the time of writing, I am completing the manuscript for a book that will be partly about the Breivik case. I have chosen to call it Witness to Madness. This will probably be self-published and should be in circulation at Amazon.com and other venues … most likely as both an ebook and as a printed paper book. At the time of writing I have surpassed 51,000 words that have already been edited and largely proofread. I am editing an analysis of Breivik’s so-called manifesto that will not be published in advance online, but will be exclusive to the book. When this is added within a few days, the word count for already edited material will be about 70,000 words.

Strictly speaking, this would be long enough to publish a full-length book if I so choose. However, I wish to include a bit more material before I publish, partly about how I experienced the Breivik case — including my meeting with Norwegian police — partly about Breivik’s psyche and the trial, and finally a section about the mass media and dishonest journalism. I have the option to include even more material than this, for instance about Islamization and Western appeasement.

I will wrap up the book at some point this fall and have already hired a proofreader.

Thereafter I will complete the manuscript for my book The Curious Civilization, which was already 90% finished at the time of Anders Behring Breivik’s massacre…. I hope to find a regular publisher for this title from the start, so it won’t be in circulation for some time yet.

After that, I will complete a book about Islam, and why I don’t think it can be reformed.

I have plans for several more books, too, possibly one about the self-destruction of Sweden and its model of the welfare state; maybe one about the EU, or about what went wrong with Western civilization.

In the long run I have serious plans for a huge brick of a book of a thousand-plus pages about European accomplishments over the past 40,000 years, from beer to Beethoven. This ambitious project is going to take me several more years to complete, however. It won’t be in circulation any time soon. –Fjordman

______________________________

© 2014 The Conservative Citizen

THE CONSERVATIVE CITIZEN PROJECT

Visit The Conservative Citizen Project to access articles, blogs, websites, videos, and documents pertaining to the conservative philosophy. Knowledge is power, and every conservative should be well armed for the ideological struggle.

Fjordman Tackles Testimony in Breivik Massacre Trial

John R. Houk

© June 13, 2012

I am a huge fan of the essayist Fjordman. Ever since the massacre in Norway by Norwegian Anders Breivik, Fjordman has been at the focal point of the blame game by Norwegian multiculturalists. Fjordman has been a pseudonym that was exposed to the public because of Breivik’s massacre. Why was a pseudonym necessary?

Islamic hatred is much stronger and dangerous in all of Europe than in America. One that exposes Islam in Europe runs the danger of arrest by the government (national and/or EU government) for hate-speech as defined by the freedom disenfranchisement of Multiculturalist laws that seems to protect everything except Christianity. The government is the one hand. The other hand is that Islamic hatred causes the constant threat of violence and death threats by Muslims living in Europe as immigrants or as 2^nd or 3^rd generation Muslims adopting a European nation BUT demanding to live the culture of intolerant Islam.

This means even under a pseudonym Fjordman had to have bodyguards to protect his life from Muslim death threats.

As soon as police authorities began to scrutinize Breivik’s 1500 page manuscript of hate it became clear that Breivik utilized the essays of prominent expose Islam/anti-jihad writers as a huge amount of manuscript content. Guess what? Fjordman is a Norwegian citizen. Instead of examining Fjordman’s essays the Norwegian authorities simply appeared to assume Fjordman was part of some terrorist conspiracy that Breivik attached himself to. The result of authority examination of Fjordman he has lost his anonymity. In his latest post or at least the latest post I have found Fjordman himself uses his actual name of Peder Jensen. I have been reluctant to use Jensen’s real name because the last time I read the actual name it was an exposé of a hit piece.

I am so used to the pseudonym I will probably continue to use that rather than Jansen unless “Fjordman” is abandoned.

Fjordman was going to an interview with Norwegian police via the Internet through Skype or something like that. Then it became clear the police would release to the public the testimony of Multiculturalist expert testimony but not that of those that expose the truth of Islam.

Fjordman took it upon himself to answer the list of probable questions that would have been answered. Below is the English translation of the answered questions as it appeared on Gates of Vienna.

JRH 6/13/12

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 - Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.

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

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).

By Fjordman

Posted by Baron Bodissey

6/12/2012 01:22:00 AM

Gates of Vienna

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.

_________________________

Fjordman Tackles Testimony in Breivik Massacre Trial

John R. Houk

© June 13, 2012

________________________

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

Gates of Vienna Pseudonym Contributors:

Baron Bodissey

Dymphna