Saturday, August 6, 2011

When Dovrefjell Crumbled, Part 2

We continue from Part 1 with our analysis of the "terrorist" incident in Norway and its political fallout.

When I saw Right wing blogger reveals identity yesterday in Norway Post, I knew my analysis from Part 1 was substantially correct. In Right wing blogger reveals identity:

The ultra right-wing blogger "Fjordman", much quoted by Andreas Behring Breivik who is charged with the July 22nd terrorist acts, is revealing his identity in the Friday issue of the newspaper VG.

"Fjordman" has been quoted a number of times in Breivik's "Manifest" which he published just hours before he carried out his terrorist acts on July 22nd. He said "Fjordman" was "a source of inspiration".

Notice how they refer to Fjordman as an "ultra right-wing blogger".

Now, consider this from Breivik's political idol «Fjordman» emerges from anonymity August 5, 2011 (boldface is in the original):

(VG Nett) In an exclusive interview with VG, Peder Jensen (36) sheds his alias as the right wing blogger «Fjordman», and talks about his shock at being cited as an influence by terrorist Anders Behring Breivik.

Thursday he was questioned for several hours by Norwegian police about his supposed interaction with Breivik (32).

Under the alias «Fjordman», he has been a prolific blogger on different far-right websites, and was cited extensively in Breivik's rambling manifesto.

Again, "right wing" and "far-right".

They can't just call Fjordman a blogger or a citizen-journalist; our "free press" (the propaganda arm of those in power) has to tell the reader what to think of this guy: he's "right wing". Previous conditioning lets you realize that "right wing" is bad.

Skipping down:

Police sources confirm that Jensen has been questioned as the blogger «Fjordman», and that they are certain of his identity.

- I feel it's my duty to give a statement to the police, and I wanted to do this interview because my name eventually would have emerged anyway, resulting in a media frenzy. It is also a way for me to clear my name, says Jensen.

Norwegian police confiscated his computer Thursday, and even though he was questioned as a witness, he feels that the police are looking to implicate him.

Fjordman made a big mistake.

As an anonymous blogger and citizen-journalist, he made an extremely valuable contribution in getting the truth about what was happening in Norway, Scandinavia and Europe out to the world, doing so in impeccable English to ensure the widest possible readership.

Because he was anonymous, people had to focus on what he was saying; once someone's identity is known, the focus shifts from what is being said to who is saying it, and the smears and persecution begin.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

~Oscar Wilde

But, for the same reason he wrote, he felt compelled to come forth and talk to the police; not because he had any information to add (he could have sent that anonymously), but to help his community and the cause of decency.

The result was predictable: he feels investigators are now trying to implicate him.

There is nothing Fjordman or anyone else can say or do that will clear his name; the neocommies are convinced he is guilty (guilty of opposing them!) and will do anything they can, legal or not, moral or not, to crucify him.

And for the rest of us, we already knew Fjordman was completely innocent; his denunciation of the terrorist attack was unnecessary, too, because we already knew he didn't approve of it. Read his writings, and you will know he is a decent person.

But, he has now thrown himself at the mercy of those who have no decency; of those for whom another man's decency is merely vulnerability to be exploited.

I now reproduce in its entirety a post from Gates of Vienna entitled Fjordman: My Afternoon With The Police :

The following message just came in from Fjordman, who adds that he intends to keep a low profile in the near future.


I am shocked by the hostile treatment I received at the hands of the police.

Lars Hedegaard heard my story and commented that he had never known of any witness who has been treated in this manner in any Western country, except for totalitarian societies such as the Third Reich.

My lawyer, who is experienced and has seen many tough cases before, did not expect anything like this to happen. He assumed this would be relatively easy, and even suggested that I might get by without a lawyer. I insisted on having one present just in case, which most likely helped a little bit. Things would have been even worse had that not been the case. My lawyer later said that in my case they operated at best at the very fringes of what could be considered legal.

I was never accused of doing anything criminal, obviously because I had nothing to do with the terror attacks and they know this. Yet without the slightest hint of proof of any lawbreaking, I was treated as a murder suspect.

To my total surprise I had to go to my flat, where for several hours half a dozen police officers went through all of my DVDs, searched through my old printed travel photographs from years back, searched through all of my (many) books, checked my kitchen equipment, went through all of my clothes, and confiscated a suitcase that contained nothing more than clothes and some books. They also confiscated several digital devices, including my camera and my laptop. It is quite clear that they wanted information about non-violent Islam-critical networks in Europe that they suspected might be contained in my PC, even though they denied this to me.

Please remember that the police and the Police Security Service (PST) apparently had no clue who I was until I literally knocked on their door of my own free will, even though I knew full well that I would have to give up my anonymity after doing so. I had very little information about Breivik since I have never met him, something which he himself has admitted, yet I still handed over what little information I had. I also answered their questions honestly, even though, technically speaking, I did not have to do so.

If you believe the mass media, the police were still not sure that I really was Fjordman until a couple of hours after I had turned up at the police station. As soon as they understood that this was indeed the case, they rushed through a quick decision to search my flat and confiscate my computer equipment immediately. They must have realized at this point that I had nothing at all to do with the terror attacks.

I personally suspect that this was mainly a political decision.

Fjordman, you are a good man, but you should have remained anonymous. You should have made the neocommie-controlled police develop some kind of probable cause or get some kind of warrant. Let them do an investigation. If they do an honest one, they might actually find out who really helped and motivated this guy, whether this guy was aware of any help or not.

By the way, I reproduce the above post in its entirety, not to steal any thunder from GOV, but to make sure Fjordman's story gets out.

Fjordman was acquainted with the bloggers from GOV, which was also named in the terrorist's manifesto. I believe it is just a matter of time before someone "outs" the GOV bloggers and shuts them up, whether because of this incident or for some other reason. If nothing else, the GOV bloggers must have accumulated quite a few fatwas by now for pointing out aspects of Islam that certain adherents of the Religion of Peace and their allies would wish to keep in obscurity.

The clear intent of the politically-motivated police operation in Norway is to identify and silence opponents of the ruling Labor Party and of its allies around the world.

We now consider excertps from Hatred, smears and the liberals hell-bent on bullying millions of us into silence by Melanie Phillips, August 1, 2011:

The baleful effects of the recent attacks in Norway, where Anders Breivik bombed Oslo's government district and then gunned down teenagers at a Labour party camp, murdering at least 77 people, have not been limited to that horrific carnage.

For the atrocity has produced a reaction among people on the political Left in Britain, Europe and the U.S. that is in itself shocking and terrifying.

Former Norwegian prime minister and current chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee Thorbjorn Jagland has said that, in response to the violent attacks, David Cameron and other European leaders should use a more 'cautious' approach when talking about multiculturalism.

Cameron has said multiculturalism (the doctrine that gives the values of minorities equal status to those of the majority) has failed, and has also talked about 'Islamist extremism' as a cause of terrorism.

Jagland, however, said leaders would be 'playing with fire' if they continued to use rhetoric that could be exploited by extremists such as Breivik.

This is similar to the aftermath of the OKBOMB. Bill Clinton immediately gave the cue, signalling that he hoped there was no Middle East connection; the FBI did not officially find one, but investigative reporter Jayna Davis did in her well-researched and well-documented New York Times best-seller The Third Terrorist. But, President Clinton and his neocommie Clintonites played the aftermath for political purposes.

This is also eerily similar to the aftermath of the shooting in Tucson in January, 2011, in which Judge John Roll was killed and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was very seriously wounded, along with a list of other victims killed and wounded. After this incident, there was again a push by the neocommies to limit the freedom of speech of those who would defend traditional American values by saying that such rhetoric incited violence.

Skipping down in Hatred, smears and the liberals hell-bent on bullying millions of us into silence:

Jagland seems to be cynically exploiting the murder of more than 70 innocents to make a connection which is as obnoxious as it is opportunistic in order to bully into silence those who express such legitimate democratic concerns.

Shockingly, he is merely one of many who are doing so.

As soon as the atrocity happened, people on the Left saw a heaven-sent opportunity to smear mainstream conservative thinkers and writers by making a grossly distorted association between Breivik's attack and their ideas.

They claimed that anyone on 'the Right' who had spoken out against multiculturalism or Islamic extremism was complicit in the atrocity and therefore had a moral duty to stop writing about such things.

A moral duty to stop speaking the truth about Islam, and how Islam lends itself to the persecution of non-Muslims, of Muslims whose views differ from the views of those in authority, of women, of other minorities...

What you see here is the neocommies trying to play the victim card to silence their opponents and the opponents of their allies.

Skipping down:

Moreover, he also mentioned dozens of other conservative or liberal writers and thinkers. Among others, he quoted: Winston Churchill, George Orwell, Mahatma Gandhi, the Labour MP Frank Field, Tory Nicholas Soames, philosopher Roger Scruton, Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson and Swedish thriller writer Lars Hedegaard.

Why don't the headlines read that the murderer took his inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi? It would be just as true, but far less politically useful.


Oh, and William Shakespeare, as well as the fathers of English liberalism John Stuart Mill and John Locke.

So the fact that Hundal singled me out like this while failing to mention these others (apart from a brief reference to Mr Clarkson) was an egregious smear — which was soon circulating and building up hatred on Twitter and the internet.

Soon, others joined in the hate-fest — even across the Atlantic. In the Toronto Star, columnist Heather Mallick wrote that unlike 'almost everyone else praised by the killer', I had not said I was horrified by the atrocity in Norway. Not only that, but whereas everyone else had wept at the murder of schoolchildren, 'she [Phillips] spits'.


As one Guardian reader commented following Milne's contemptible attack, the fact that he had deliberately blurred the distinction between reasonable political opinions with which one might disagree and the actions of a terrorist meant he was creating hysteria and polarisation.

Indeed, the result of such incitement has been a veritable tsunami of electronically-generated mob hatred.

That was the goal.

No, it is those who under the cover of accusing me of incendiary writing are themselves inciting hatred.

The claim that 'blood is on my hands' can so easily translate into someone seeking my own blood. Heaven forbid that should happen — but if it did, there would be a direct causal link with those who have whipped up this wicked firestorm.

Indeed, those who have exploited the killing of innocents in Norway to provoke such an eruption of distortion, demonisation and irrationality should disgust and alarm all decent people everywhere.

(For more background on the reactions to this incident, see The Oslo Fallout: A Review of Views Unfit to Print by Srdja Trifkovic, August 1, 2011. For more thoughts on Fjordman, see The Forced Resignation of Fjordman from August 5, 2011, written by GOV blogger Baron Bodissey, who actually knew Fjordman.)

So, the "terrorist" attack in Norway... Cui bono?

In its entirety, Labour climbs on latest poll from August 6, 2011:

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's Labour Party (AP) climbs 11.7 percentage points on Norfakta's latest poll, and now has the support of 40.4 per cent of the electorate.

The poll was made for the newspapers Nationen and Klassekampen, and was taken after the terrorist attacks on July 22nd.

The poll also shows a marked drop for the Conservatives (Høyre) and the right wing Progress Party (FrP).

Høyre is supported by 21.4 per cent of the voters, and FrP 16.2 per cent.

For the other parties the changes are minimal.


In Part 1 I explained how I thought the neocommies of Norway's Labor Party were working together with Islamists to pull this off. I further explained how I thought the Islamists got a neo-Nazi to actually do the work. My summary:

Better to grease 'em now for a political and propaganda victory. ;)

It may very well be the exact mechanics of the behind-the-scenes work is different from what I suspect, but these are the players behind this, of that I am sure.

Why? Well, answer me this:

Cui bono?

No comments:

Post a Comment