Skip to content

Tulleteologi og falske instrumenter

Av Bjørn Are Davidsen. Davidsen er utdanna sivilingeniør, med tilleggsstudier i pedagogikk og sosialantropologi. Han jobber med produktutvikling i IKT-bransjen.

(Forfatteren har brukt fotnoter. Bloggen vår har dessverre ikke noe system for å håndtere dette for øyeblikket, og vi beklager derfor at dette framstår som noe rotete. Fotnotene finnes nederst i innlegget. Red anm.)

I kaoset etter pågripelsen av Anders Behring Breivik 22/7 kalte politi og presse ham de første timene både «kristenfundamentalist» og «konservativ kristen».  Bakgrunnen synes dels å være en facebookprofil der han betegnet seg som “Christian” og “conservative” og dels et ønske om å understreke at massemorderen ikke var muslim, etter forhastede konklusjoner om dette i media.

Når vi i ettertid leser morderens manifest, ser vi at også omtalen av ham som kristen bygger på feilslutninger.[1] Breiviks synspunkter gjenkjennes ikke blant kjente teologier. Han ikke bare mangler tilknytning til en kjent konfesjon, han etablerer heller ikke en annen. Han kan ha oppfattet seg selv som en enmannshær, men lykkes ikke med å etablere en enmannsreligion. I stedet møter vi det mindre kjente fenomenet ingenmannstro. Det han konstruerer av ”kristendom” er noe ikke engang han selv tror eller tilhører.[2]

Ser vi nøyere på hva i Breiviks tenkning eller mer presist hans retorikk og klipp-og-lim-prosjekt som berører gudstro og «kristendom» synes det mest som forsøk på å skape en positiv samklang med det han ser som sin historiske sammenheng. Med det målet i siktet plukker han bannere og honnørord fra sitt mentale roteloft slik at antiislamister kan ha noe å samle seg om, enten de er ateister, agnostikere, kristne eller odinister.

Likevel er det enkelte som fortsatt omtaler ABB som kristen terrorist eller kristenfundamentalist. For som Leonid Rødsten sier i Vårt Land 29. august 2011: «det er da ingen tvil om at mannen ønsker at Norge skal være et hvitt, konservativt land basert på kristendommen?» Og det legges til at «hans fire og et halvt års medlemskap i frimurerordene er basert på det kristne frimureriet. På sin vei oppover i gradene har han vært med der det praktiseres et pedagogisk system for selverkjennelse og egenutvikling».

Men faren er nok større for at man har latt seg blende av retorikken når noen påberoper seg at de vil forsvare kristendommen. Spesielt når verken Breivik eller den som tar ham på ordet forklarer hva som ligger i begrepet ”kristendom”, utover en form for nostalgi for en forgangen tid, for en romantisert middelalder mer basert på fantasy enn forskning. Det er også en fare for at man ikke har lest Breivik, siden han selv så tydelig tar avstand fra kristenfundamentalisme.

“It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).” (Side 1361-62)

Og ikke nok med det, som selgerne sier. Breivik tar ikke bare avstand fra kristenfundamentalisme, han mener at logikk, rasjonalisme og i noen grad nasjonaldarwinisme (noe som nok klinger langt i retning av nasjonalsosialisme) bør være fundamentet for samfunnet.

Q: What should be our civilisational objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?
A: ‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies.” (Side 1385-86).

Det er heller ikke vanlig i religionssosiologi å ta medlemskap i frimurerordenen til inntekt for at noen er kristne, eller for at de følger en kristen teologi utenom møtene. I stedet er nok forklaringen på både hans ordens- og middelalderromantikk både et ønske om å knytte seg opp mot bevegelser som er større enn ham selv og at han i stor grad kan bruke dem til sine egne formål. Selv om de ikke alltid vitner om store doser «selverkjennelse og egenutvikling».

Vi ser imidlertid denne type tanker også utenfor leserbrevspaltene som når NRK lener seg mot den amerikanske forskeren Mark Juergensmeyer og bruker «kristen terrorist» i overskriften:[3]

«USAs kristenkonservative krymper seg når den norske massemorderen Anders Behring Breivik blir beskrevet som en ‘kristen terrorist’. Men det er det han er (…).»

Og siden vi da snakker om en anerkjent forsker, er det grunn til å trå forsiktig så vi ikke misforstår forklaringer og forbehold. Ikke minst er det et viktig poeng at begrepet “kristen”, slik også Brevik viser, har flere betydninger og betoninger og det kan ligge mange motiver bak bruken (polemiske, politiske, personlige osv.), enten den gjelder en selv eller andre.

Leser vi intervjuet, ser vi at Juergensmeyer ikke snakker om tro eller tilslutning til noe trossamfunn, men om religiøs orientert retorikk. Han sier at det er riktig at Behring Breivik var langt mer opptatt av politikk og historie enn skrifter og religiøs overbevisning. Men så gjør han det polemiske grepet å hevde at det samme i grunnen kan sies om Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri og alle andre islamistiske aktivister.

Poenget er rett og slett at vi må bruke like begreper når vi snakker om disse to terroristaksene. Det er i følge Juergensmeyer like (u)rettmessig å kalle Breivik for kristen som bin Laden for muslim, selv om sistnevnte antagelig hadde et atskillig mer personlig eller inderlig forhold til sin gudstro. De er på mange måter speilbilder av hverandre. Sier vi A, at bin Laden var en muslimsk terrorist, må vi si B, at Behring Breivik er kristen terrorist.

Interessant nok ser vi at Anders Behring Breivik omtaler al Qaida i beundrende ordelag, som om han ønsker seg en kristen utgave. Han leter ikke overraskende etter rette type hellige krigere blant korsfarerne, og finner dette primært i (sin versjon av) Tempelridderne, selv om han også trekker fram andre, fra pave Urban II via serbere (i det hele tatt finner han mye inspirasjon i serbisk historie) til odinister.[4]

Og likheten er (sier Juergensmeyer) slående mellom Timothy McVeigh (som bombet Oklahoma City i 1995) og Breivik. For begge handlet dette om å redde samfunnet fra noe de oppfattet som forferdelig. Et gjennomgående fellestrekk er at de ikke så mye er for noe som mot noe. Begge så seg som kjekke, unge, vestlige menn og soldater i en kosmisk krig for å redde ”kristendommen”. Begge trodde at deres masseødeleggelser ville utløse en kolossal kamp for å redde samfunnet fra multikulturalisme og andre liberale tanker som hadde skylden for at ikke-kristne og fargede mennesker ble akseptert.

Her og andre steder ser vi forøvrig en klassisk feiloversettelse som gjør at dette hos NRK fremstår mer religiøst enn hos Juergensmeyer. For det Breivik er opptatt av her er ikke Christianity (kristendommen), men Christendom – kristenheten – eller med andre ord (det han oppfatter som) vestens kultur.

Det er kort sagt interessant å se hvor lite bevandret Breivik er i kristen tanke eller teologi. Han siterer ett og annet, spesielt knyttet til korstogene, men viser ingen kjennskap til ting som trosbekjennelser, ulike former for kristen etisk tenkning eller en gang begrepet rettferdig krig som har vært så sentral i den europeiske diskursen om konflikter og våpenbruk.[5]

Muligens er forklaringen at Breivik er mest fokusert på fiendebildet. Kampen i hans innbilte, altomfattende krig står mot «de kulturelle marxistene/multikulturalist-eliten», som han ser på som “vår tids nazister, som har tenkt å lede oss inn i det kulturelle slakterhuset ved å selge oss til det muslimske slaveri”, ifølge manifestet. Breivik viser lite annet enn en muslimhaters dødelige konspirasjonsteori koblet til en romantisert drøm om kristenheten.  Det er ingen substans eller systematikk i hans tenkning. Han har kort sagt ingen teologi. Det lar seg heller ikke bygge noen av hans polemikk og påfunn, hvis kravet er at den skal henge sånn noenlunde på greip.

Dermed er det som ventet at Juergensmeyer ikke støtter NRKs overskrift. Breivik er ingen “kristen terrorist”, men en som bruker kristennavnet for å få alibi og anerkjennelse.

Det er heller ikke underlig at lite tyder på at ABB har hatt tilknytning til kristne miljøer eller menigheter selv om han i manifestet ved én anledning nevner et ønske om å gå til ”martyrmesse” i Frogner kirke (som forøvrig er protestantisk og i liten grad tilbyr messer, og i hvert fall ikke slike).

En ikke-religiøs religion
Før vi forsøker oss på mer presise beskrivelse av hva ABB står for bør imidlertid nevnes at han i følge sin egen oppfatning er en lite religiøs person, uten at vi her heller må la oss fange av retorikken. Men det er ikke gitt at det kommer mye klokt ut av å studere religiøse motiver hos en som selv hevder han ikke er spesielt religiøs, uansett hvilke motiver vi måtte finne.  Ikke minst når han i tillegg vedgår (enten dette er retorisk eller ei) at han er svært pragmatisk og påvirket av det han kaller sekulære omgivelser.

“I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment” (side 1344).

For likevel å våge oss på en oppsummering i en setning har ABB et mer instrumentelt enn inderlig forhold til religiøse begreper og anvender dem primært som kulturmarkører dels inspirert av serbisk nasjonalisme. Muligens kan man også finne spor av en mer psykologisk eller magisk vinkling der gudstro og ritualer brukes for å skjerpe sansene og øke motet og kampviljen, selv om det meste tyder på at dette mer er en del av hans retorikk enn at han faktisk har gjennomført religiøse ritualer med dette for øyet.

Hans religiøse pretensjoner kan dermed grovt sagt deles i tre hovedpoenger med noen nyanser og underpunkter.

Religion som instrument
Mer spesifikt er det slik at ABB ikke er opptatt av konkrete eller navngitte teologiske tradisjoner. Han knytter seg faktisk ikke opp mot noen teolog eller større kristen tenker. En grunn til dette er at religion for ABB synes å handle om psykologi, ikke om sannhet, selv om han har et pragmatisk forhold til om det kan være liv etter døden og anbefaler gudstro «for sikkerhets skyld». Hans gudsbevis synes kort sagt å være at «det er ikke ateister i skyttergraver».[6] Diskursen knyttes altså til dødsangst, noe som det sjelden kommer mye vettugt ut av.  Breivik verken hevder eller argumenterer for at Gud faktisk finnes, kun for at gudstro kan gi mot til å starte krigen og virke som en boost når skuddene smeller. Helt på linje med hans pragmatiske anbefalinger av musikk og medikamenter.

“Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet… But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill.”

Dermed er det også slik at religion aldri kan være det primære. I ABBs “teologi” ser vi dermed at han i motsetning til all kjent kristenfundamentalisme setter vitenskapen høyere enn Bibelen.

“As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.” Side 1404.

Religion som kulturmarkør
Selv om ABB ikke er religiøs i noen sterk betydning av ordet, ønsker han å forsvare og forsterke det han oppfatter som europeiske kulturelementer, kristenheten eller altså «kristendommen».

Når han i retorikken lener seg mot en kristen Gud, er det dermed som noe han kaller «kulturkristen», men som omfatter brede grupper av agnostikere, ateister og odinister.[7] I stedet for å fokusere på forskjeller må vi som opposisjon til islamske tradisjoner markere at vi tilhører en europeisk kultur eller kristenheten (“Christendom”). Dermed kan han selv og andre som ikke har et «personlig forhold til Jesus» likevel kalle seg kristne i denne betydningen.

“A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians? If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” Side 1307

Det er med andre ord vanskeligere å si i klartekst at man ikke er kristen, men av ulike årsaker finner det opportunt å sjanghaie begrepet til egen oppbyggelse. I religionssosiologien er begrepet dels knyttet til at man deltar på gudstjenester noen ganger i måneden (det holder altså ikke å være døpt og konfirmert) og dels til om konfesjonen man er medlem av kan regnes som kristen (hvilket svært mange kan). Teologisk sett handler det å være kristen i en meningsfull forstand enkelt sagt om man tror at Jesus er Guds sønn og hevder man har et personlig forhold til ham som frelser.

Dette dreier seg med andre ord verken om evnen til å vise nestekjærlighet eller om personlig fromhet og inderlighet. Definisjonen sier i prinsippet ingen ting om at en massemorder ikke kan være kristen. I stedet går dette hva man bekjenner seg til (hva man hevder å tro) og hva man deltar i (hvilke sammenhenger man er aktiv i).

Kort sagt kan verken religionssosiologi eller teologi tas til inntekt for at hvem som helst kan adoptere begrepet kristen til hva som helst av formål eller filosofier. Heller ikke Anders Behring Breivik.

Nå er det ikke bare slik at han ikke er aktiv i noe trossamfunn. Han tar i praksis klar avstand selv fra de trossamfunnene han hevder å ha som forbilde i sine middelalderske fantasier.

Dette fremgår med umisforståelig tydelighet når han intervjuer seg selv.

“Q: Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachings of the Bible?
A: My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian. However, I strongly object to the current suicidal path of the Catholic Church but especially the Protestant Church.

I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values, at least resist the efforts put forth to exterminate it gradually. The Catholic and Protestant Church are both cheering their own annihilation considering the fact that they embrace the ongoing inter-faith dialogue and the appeasement of Islam. The current Church elite has shown its suicidal face, as vividly demonstrated last year by the archbishop of Canterbury’s speech contemplating the legitimacy of Shariah in parts of Britain.”

Dermed er det ingen vei utenom en reformasjon av kirken. Tilbake til hvordan den var (i følge Breivik) før reformasjonen. Mens de seneste paver har vært feige og
suicidale må en fremtidig pave vise seg som en mann.

“I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed. We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead by a just and non-suicidal Pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.”

Når kirken er ferdig formet i Breiviks bilde kan den få lov til å få «mer eller mindre» monopol, men man aner at den ikke skal trå langt til siden før han løfter pisk eller pistol.

“I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades. As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.”

For Breivik er ikke religiøs. Han er en logikkens mann, først og fremst en rasjonalist. Som av pragmatiske grunner støtter et monokulturelt kristent Europa.

“Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” (side 1403-04)

Som vi ser er ABBs kristne ideal ikke en form for kristendom som praktiseres av noen. ABB tar tvert i mot sterk avstand fra det han i tråd med Nietzsche, Ayn Rand og andre oppfatter som en feig og farlig mangel ved en jødisk kristen etikk, rett og slett nestekjærlighet og omsorg. Siden denne mangelen truer med å undergrave hans prosjekt må kristen tro endres.

“The Judeo-Christian religions played an important and influential role in building the once mighty West but we also discovered that these religions contained a serious flaw that has sewed the seeds of the suicidal demise of the indigenous peoples of Western Europe and our cultures. This flaw was identified by the brilliant German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche who described it as ‘an inversion of morality’ whereby the weak, the poor, the meek, the oppressed and the wretched are virtuous and blessed by God whereas the strong, the wealthy, the noble and the powerful are the immoral and damned by the vengeful almighty Yahweh for eternity.

Nietzsche, with great insight and perception, stated that Christianity would be abandoned en masse in the twentieth century but that Westerners would still cling to this inversion of morality.” (Side 391)

Det nye testamentet (NT) er i det hele tatt noe som interesserer ham lite. I stedet for å finne forbilder som Jesus eller den barmhjertige samaritan i NT finner Breivik sine helter på nettet, ikke minst hos serbere som har vært i krigen før. Det er nok ikke Bernard av Clairvaux som har inspirert tempelridderordenen han hevder å ha vært med på å stifte, selv om den skulle være like mye en fiksjon som hans kirke.

Den gode Bernard ville nok rynket atskillig på nesen over Breiviks romantisering og retorikk, for ikke å si over at det ikke er nødvendig å være kristen for å være en moderne tempelridder.

“Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?
A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;
– That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage.
The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christianatheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).

The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian ‘culturalist’ military order.” (side 1361-62)

Skal man kjempe mot islam kreves sterke og effektive symboler og faner. ABBs prosjekt er kort sagt å etablere en kampfront mot islamsk innvandring, inkludert å utrydde alle forrædere i kampen. Siden dette som vi har sett kan medføre grusomme handlinger kan kristennavnet være godt å ta med seg for å vise at dette egentlig er noe godt og flott. I hvert fall så lenge man holder paven i ørene og passer nøye på å holde seg unna alt som ligner kristen teologi og etikk (inkludert ting han tror ligner, som når Breivik synes å ha falt for myten om kirkens innbitte historiske motstand mot utviklingen av naturvitenskapen).[8]

Religion som rusmiddel
Vel så viktig som å bruke religion som kulturmarkør og låne retorikk fra serbisk nasjonalisme, er det å bruke gudstro for å psyke seg opp. Deler av dette handler om syndstilgivelse (i tilfelle det tross alt skulle finnes en himmel) og dels om å rense seg ved martyrmesser, antagelig fordi han tror islamistiske terrorister har god erfaring med at dette virker motiverende. Men det handler også om det motsatte av Marx’ gamle påstand om religion som opium for folket. Breivik ønsker seg religion som amfetamin for krigerne.

Dermed er det praktisk med gudstro siden det kan medføre fare å plaffe løs med våpen. Det er også greit for de som ikke er svake å kunne lene seg mot en krykke så man holder motet og konsentrasjonen oppe, selv om ABB i skrivende stund ikke selv hadde kjent dette behovet.

“’Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic.’

Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet… But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. I know there is a 80%+ chance I am going to die during the operation as I have no intention to surrender to them until I have completed all three primary objectives AND the bonus mission. When I initiate (providing I haven’t been apprehended before then), there is a 70% chance that I will complete the first objective, 40% for the second, 20% for the third and less than 5% chance that I will be able to complete the bonus mission. It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would….If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past.” (p. 1344)

Skal vi avslutte der vi begynte er observasjonen at Breiviks manifest er skrevet av en lite religiøs person uten stor interesse for eller innsikt i kristen tro. Når han likevel bruker plass på bibelvers, har han surfet seg fram til noe som kan komme til nytte når noen sier at Jesus oppfordrer til nestekjærlighet og å vende det andre kinnet til. Det handler ikke om hva som skal til for å bli eller være kristen.[9] I stedet sitatsurfer han seg fram til at Det nye testamentet (NT) tillater selvforsvar og at Gud i Det gamle testamentet (GT) skildres som aktiv i Israels kriger.[10] Men selv om han gjør dette, er han ikke i stand til å finne hovedteksten om styresmaktens rett og plikt til å bære sverd, nærmere bestemt Romerbrevet, kapittel 13.

Breivik ender langt unna en normalkristen teologi der et viktig og avgjørende prinsipp er at GT skal tolkes i lys av NT. Hans bibelutlegninger er en tulleteologi der NT overstyres av GT. I stedet for å forstå at den nye pakt i NT går på tvers av nasjoner og grenser, vender han tilbake til en nasjonsorientert tenkning på linje med GT, selv om hans nasjon er Europa. Det er kort sagt vanskelig å finne flere måter å bryte med begrepet kristen enn hva Breivik har klart.

Skulle vi forsøke å tolke ham ut fra hans selvforståelse, er det som en pragmatisk rasjonalist, farget av et überromantisk syn på kristenheten og fanget av en konspirasjonsteori om den islamske fare. For å motarbeide denne løfter han fanene han finner nyttige å samles under, når han ikke vifter med røde kluter for å produsere adrenalin.

Siden Breivik mener kristennavnet klinger godt i Europa forsøker han å fortelle at vi alle er kristne. Det treffer ikke bedre enn Torvald Stoltenbergs velmente påstand om at «vi er alle serbere».  Breivik har likevel mer troverdighet som serbisk nasjonalist enn som kristen.

Fotnoter
[1] Kristenfundamentalist brukes her ikke bare som et annet ord for fanatisme og svart/hvitt-tenkning, men mer spesifikt om konservative lavkirkelige kristne som oppfatter Bibelen som bokstavelig sann (verbalinspirert) og ofte kan avvise forhold som homofilt samliv, kvinnelige prester og/eller evolusjon. Når Breivik uttrykker direkte at vitenskap har forrang for Bibelen (“it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings”, side 1404.) gjør han seg med andre ord ikke til venn med spesielt mange kristenfundamentalistiske retninger. Derimot knytter han seg et stykke på vei opp mot den anti-islamske og ofte nasjonale retorikken vi kan se også i noen marginale kristne miljøer, uten at vi kan trekke sammenligningen spesielt lenger.

[2] I tilfelle noen lesere oppfatter teologi som uansett meningsløst (for eksempel fordi man ikke tror på noen Gud) er poenget her at dette i kristen sammenheng tradisjonelt handler om ofte svært så rasjonelle og systematiske analyser for å forstå tekster og tolkninger og etablere forpliktende formuleringer. Alle kan lage seg en teologi på hobbyrommet, men det fjerner ikke spørsmålet om hva utenforstående skal kalle produktet, hvorfor noen (som en selv) skulle slutte seg til det og hvor langt på vei det tåler kritisk lys og/eller passer betegnelser som katolsk, protestantisk, fundamentalistisk, konservativ, liberal eller annet.

[3] «- Derfor er Breivik en kristen terrorist», http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.7735739

[4] Som i oversikten “European Odinist and Crusader heroes resisting and fighting Islamisation: France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg”, side 242. Den gjennomgående tråden knyttet til serbisk historie, ikke minst med tapet for tyrkerne ved Kosovo i 1389 og NATOs bombing av serbiske styrker i 1999, viser at Breivik har lånt mye av sin ”kristne retorikk” av serbiske nasjonalister som ønsker seg tilbake til en muslimren nasjon.

[5] Søker man i manifestet på  et kristent orientert begrep som ”just war” får man null treff. Søker man på ”holy war” får man atskillige.

[6] Han begynner en utlegning om dette på side 1341

[7] “We must ensure that the churches of Europe propagate an [sic] values that are sustainable and that will even contribute to safeguard Christian European values long term. European Christendom and the cross will be the symbol in which every cultural conservative can unite under in our common defence. It should serve as the uniting symbol for all Europeans whether they are agnostic or atheists.” (Side 1307)

Breivik er tilsvarende opptatt av at odinistene skal forstå nødvendigheten av å slutte seg til en «kristen fane»:

“Q: What about atheists and Odinists, can they join the PCCTS, Knights Templar?

A: If you want to fight for the cross and die under the “cross of the martyrs” it’s required that you are a practising Christian, a Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist (cultural Christian). The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit. Even Odinists can fight with us or by our side as brothers in this fight as long as they accept the founding principles of PCCTS, Knights Templar and agree to fight under the cross of the martyrs. The essence of our struggle is to defeat the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe before the we are completely demographically overwhelmed by Muslims. I have studied Norse Mythology and have a lot of respect for the Odinist traditions. I

consider myself to be a Christian, but Odinism is still and will always be an important part of my culture and identity.” (Side 1353)

[8] “The pacifist/suicidal Christians must never be allowed to dominate the church again which [is] one of the reasons why I personally believe that the protestant Church in Europe should once again should [sic] reform to become Catholic (Nordic countries, the UK, Germany, Benelux etc). Re-introduction of cultural and Church aspects relating to honour should be the core of our objective when reforming the Church. My hope is that the future nationalist leadership in Western European countries will agree. At the very least, we must support the conservative, anti-pacifist cultural Christian leaders and ensure that they are able to influence the European churches. There must however be clear distinctions. The Church must not put any limits whatsoever on issues relating to science, research and development. Europe will continue to be the world’s center for research and development in all areas, strengthened by a predictable and ‘unchangeable’ cultural framework. This again will considerably strengthen European and societal cohesion and therefore contribute to sustainable societies where harmony, progress, freedom and the furtherance of mankind are the primary civilisational pillars.” (Side 1308)

[9] Ordet frelser (saviour) er brukt bare én gang i religiøs sammenheng i manifestet, og da om Buddha (side 709).

[10] Side 1327-1334 – Samtidig som selvforsvar defineres ganske … vidt: “In the context of cultural conservative Europeans current war against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites and the ongoing Islamic invasion through Islamic demographic warfare against Europe, every military action against our enemies is
considered self defence. There will be much suffering and destruction but eventually we will succeed and may be able to start rebuilding.” (Side 1329)

So, what’s the deal with Fjordman?

Av Øyvind Strømmen, frilansjournalist og blogger. Strømmen har utdanning i journalistikk og religionsvitenskap, og gir høsten 2011 ut ei bok om høyreekstremisme på bakgrunn av terrorangrepet 22. juli.

The identity of Fjordman has been revealed. He revealed it himself, realising that media would sooner or later figure out who he is. Personally, I don’t find his identity all that interesting, but it is a good thing that we now know. Just yesterday, someone else was “exposed” as being Fjordman on wikipedia, and in journalist circles in Norway, there’s been several rumours.

Some of these rumours have been outright laughable, one of them pointing at a fellow who has battled conspiracy thinking for years. Others have been more plausible, at least pointing at people who share a considerable number of ideological ideas with Fjordman, people who have bought into the same kind of conspiracy thinking as him. The fact that Fjordman’s identity is now known will stop that rumour mill, and that’s all for the better.

What’s interesting about Fjordman, however, isn’t his identity, but his ideas; and I would recommend that journalists writing about them also take the time to check out some of his articles. Almost 40 of Fjordman’s essays have been included, in full, in the Norwegian terrorist Anders B. Breivik’s manifesto, and reading those essays will not merely give you an insight into Fjordman’s thinking, they will give an insight into the ideas which inspired the terrorist atrocities.

Gates of Vienna – one of the central blogs in the “counterjihad” universe – now writes:

Fjordman is the best of us. He is not just a brilliant scholar and a fine writer, but also the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met. He is a man of utmost integrity, and it shines through in his dealings with others as well as in the millions of words he has written.

Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, who included an essay of Fjordman in his book “Selvmordsparadigmet”, seems to also think quite highly of Fjordman, but in the Norwegian radio program Dagsnytt 18 earlier today, he did note that the rhetorics of Fjordman is “too hard”. I’ve got a newsflash for Anfindsen: The main problem with Fjordman is not his rhetorics, but his ideas. And I will point to a few examples.

Let’s start with Fjordman’s essay “Native Revolt: A European declaration of independence”, one of the many included in the terrorist’s manifesto, which – incidentally – carries almost same name, but with “2083″ added to it. Fjordman wrote this essay in 2007. It’s long – like most of his essays. It’s angry, too, like most of them. It’s an essay worth reading, if you want to get a glimpse of “the utmost integrity” of Fjordman. Let’s start with Fjordman’s opinion of the European Union:

Why is this pan-European EU dictatorship still functioning? Because seeing is believing. Most Europeans still don’t know that EU leaders are using their money without their consent to merge Europe with the Arab world because their media don’t [sic!] tell them this.

Now, that’s actually a very good summary of Fjordman’s conspiracy thinking. The European Union, one of the largest democratic experiments in world history, is a dictatorship. Its leaders are allegedly using our money to “merge Europe with the Arab world”. And the media is in on the conspiracy, too, since it doesn’t tell us anything about it. But, to be sure, the conspiracy theory goes deeper than just that. On the news blog document.no (which is very critical of current immigration policies, and of Islam, but which does not belong in the “counterjihadist” category), both Fjordman and the terrorist Anders B. Breivik commented on the same post in November 2009, a post on the minaret ban in Switzerland, and on reactions to this. Below, you will find a translation into English. If you’re looking for the original Norwegian, you will find it in another recent post at my blog.

First, the terrorist:

This is only the beginning of a long-lasting campaign of psychological warfare against the Swiss [written with capital S in Norwegian, too, which is a break with grammatical rules suggesting a somewhat unhealthy reverence with national states]. The worst thing of it all, is that this is very effective, as we saw with Austria a few years back. The Swiss people will cave for the demonisation, like the Austrians and the Serbs before them. The fact that European and American mainstream media, 95% of the NGOs and 80% of the political parties are all controlled by cultural marxists is possibly the foremost reason for us having to suffer multiculturalism (cultural marxism) and islamisation for at least another 20-70 years. […]20 years at the earliest is my bet (70 years at the max). So, change will come, it’s guaranteed, we will just have to be patient.

(Do note that the idea of “Cultural Marxism”, too, is lifted from Fjordman).

Then Fjordman:

My prediction is that the European Union will apart from the inside within 20 years, and that there is a full-scale civil war in at least one European country before this happens. Sooner or later common people will discover that the European Union and European leaders have already decided – behind the backs of the population – that a continued Muslim colonisation of our continent is to be given free reins. This is the largest betrayal throughout world history, and it is infathomable that our socalled critical press, including the largest newspaper VG, does not write a single word about it. The fact is that Western leaders are conducting demographic and judicial warfare against the white majority population in Western countries in order to break them down, all to the benefit of an authoritarian, post-democratic world order with themselves at the top.

Now, please note that this is not merely an anti-Islamic ideology. The ideology is anti-Western. Fjordman really believes that there’s a grand conspiracy which includes leading politicians and the media. Here he is 100% in agreement with Breivik, or – to be precise – Breivik is in 100% agreement with him. Now, of course Fjordman claims – both as Fjordman and as Peder Jensen – that he has never encouraged violence. Well, frankly, I don’t think you have to. If you’re saying that Jens Stoltenberg, for instance, is actually a worse traitor than Quisling, if you’re saying that Europe is being occupied and colonised, if you’re saying that politicians, journalists and academics – across the political scale – are willingly playing a part in this… if you’re saying all of this, politically motivated violence does not seem like an absurd idea; the step onto violence is not a very far one.

That said, in his “declaration”, Fjordman poses a number of demands. He does this, of course, on the behalf of “we”, “the European peoples”, a rather megalomaniac concept for an anonymous blogger from a small town in Western Norway to throw around. The demands include the dismantling of the European Union, trials against people having taken part in the alleged conspiracy and betrayal, a process of “de-Eurabification”, a halt in all Muslim immigration to Europe (regardless of cause), etc. And if these demands are not met, Fjordman writes – in 2007 – then “we”, “the European peoples”, must conclude:

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn’t dismantled, Multiculturalism isn’t rejected and Muslim immigration isn’t stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.

Now, of course, Fjordman never tells us what these “appropriate measures” actually are. But to pretend that the problem with this text is “rhetorics”, well, that’s rather poorly played by mr. Anfindsen, and this should be rather clear.

Of course, it doesn’t stop there. Fjordman has written a large number of essays, covering a large number of topics. In one of them, “The Coming Crash“, he attacks the United States. It’s an interesting example of his writings, because of the overt racism in it. Once again, the problem is ideas, not merely rhetorics.

If the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire then the USA is the Diversity Empire, committed to spreading Multiculturalism and genetic Communism around the world, especially to white majority countries.

[…]

When I see how Nidal Hasan was treated by the US military I don’t think I want these people involved in my affairs. They would probably say that native Euros are Nazis who oppress the poor Muslims. Then they would bomb us and say it is for our own good, just like they did to the Serbs. The United States will not survive this century. It will be split into several countries according to ethnic, racial and perhaps even ideological lines. There is no such thing as a universal nation. People want to live with their own kind. The only ones who are not allowed to do so are whites, and they are starting to get tired of this double standard.

[…]

Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. It’s about time that whites reclaim the same right without apology. I am increasingly convinced that the developments we are witnessing are deliberate. The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every Western country. I’ve had some discussions about this with my friend Ohmyrus who thinks this is about a structural failure in our political system. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but I also believe there is a planned long-term goal of breaking down all white majority nations to create a new global oligarchy. Anti-white ideologies are now taught in every Western university and were arguably elevated to national ideology in the USA with the election of Obama.

His friend Ohmyrus is, by the way, a Chinese blogger arguing the ills of democracy. Now, Fjordman says that he does not necessarily agree with that, but in his book “Defeating Eurabia” he approvingly quotes a British blogger who notes that “this is an existential war”, and “if this means that we need to suspend parliamentary democracy for the duration — so be it”.

Let me point to another essay by Fjordman, another one which Breivik decided to include in his cut-and-paste-manifesto. The essay is called “The Failure of Western Feminism“. In it Fjordman notes:

The truth is that any nation is always protected from external aggression by the men. The women can play a supporting role in this, but never more than that. For all the talk about “girl power” and “women kicking ass” which you see on movies these days, if the men of your “tribe” are too weak or demoralised to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other “tribes” before you can say “Vagina Monologues”. Which means that if you break down men’s masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years.

For several years, I have said that Fjordman is indeed a fascist. Now, this is a word which is often thrown about much too easily. I’ve heard enough people speak of the Norwegian PRogress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) as fascist, suggesting that they do not know much about the Progress Party, and that they know next to nothing about fascism. When I call Fjordman as fascist, however, I’m using a rather common scholarly definition, that of leading fascism scholar Roger Griffin:

[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.

Now, Fjordman is obviously a nationalist, and – lo! behold! – he does call for a nativerevolt. In his works, he describes a political revolution, which he sees as necessary, to ensure a national rebirth of sorts. In fact, he writes of the necessity of “a new Renaissance, where European civilization can flourish once more”, and even says that “We need to make sure, though, that those who have championed the toxic ideas of Multiculturalism and mass immigration of alien tribes disappear with it”. And, Fjordman does speak of decadence as one of the root-causes of the European decay which plays a central role in his world-view, while of course focussing on Marxism – a rather wide category in his world (that’s hardly a new meme amongst fascists). He furthermore does call for massive “ethical” and “social” changes, amongst other things to ensure that (White) women have more babies. He seems willing to “suspend” parliamentary democracy. And on top of it all, he is obsessed with the idea of historical heroes, for instance Charles Martel and John III Sobieski. In his book,Fjordman writes:

The EU is systematically surrendering the continent to our worst enemies. […] When an organization ignores the interests of its own people yet implements the interests of that people’s enemies, that organization has become an actively hostile entity run by a corrupt class of abject traitors. This is what the EU is today. […]Those inhabiting the European continent are first and foremost Germans, Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Portuguese etc. “Europe” has existed mainly to protect the continent against Islamic expansionism. Charles Martel created Europe in the modern sense when he defeated the Arab invasion in the seventh century, aided by people such as Pelayo, who started the Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula, John Hunyadi and Lazar of Serbia who fought against the Turks in the Balkans and John III Sobieski, King of Poland, who beat the Ottomans during the 1683 Battle of Vienna. The EU is actively working to undo everything Charles Martel and these men achieved. This makes it the anti-European Union.

In short, Fjordman neatly fits the definition of “fascism”. He is a neo-fascist ideologist.  To boot, he does not seem to have any problems – whatsoever – in cooperating with political groups whose roots are decidedly and glaringly obviouslyfound in the post-WWII movement of European neo-fascism. And you know what they say: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Notably, too, every single one of the ideas of Fjordman mentioned above are in one way or the other repeated by the terrorist Anders B. Breivik. Every single one. In spite of that, some people try to make rather daft excuses. One of them is Andrew Bostom, who writes:

An hysterical, morally cretinous press and blogosphere—Norwegian, other European, and American— […]continues to persist that he was Brevik’s “main inspiration,” a charge akin to accusing the Beatles of “inspiring” Charles Manson, or Jody Foster “inspiring” John Hinckley.

News flash for Andrew G. Bostom: The Beatles did not peddle an ideology of hatred, and the lyrics of Helter Skelter do not really spell the recipe of “race war”, like they did for Charles Manson. Fjordman, on the other hand, did not write lyrics for a melody. For 6 years he has written a large number of blog posts peddling a world-view where leading politicians are guilty of treason and Europe is being occupied. And that makes sort of… well… a difference, don’t you think?

I do wonder, though, mr. Bostom, would you make similar excuses for an Islamist blogger who had inspired an Islamist terrorist? You wouldn’t? Quelle surprise.

Artikkelen blei først publisert på forfatterens egen blogg 5. august 2011. Den er gjengitt her med hans uttrykkelige tillatelse. All videre bruk må avtales med ham.

2083 by Anders Behring Breivik, Fjordman – Part 2

«Bokanmeldelsen» er skrevet av Anita Dalton, bloggeren bak «I Read Odd Books». Hun er BA i engelsk litteratur og beskriver seg sjøl som «først og fremst kjent fordi hun liker å lese det få andre vil bla i».

Book: 2083: A European Declaration of Independence

Author: Andrew Berwick, real name Anders Behring Breivik

Type of Book: Paranoid manifesto, conspiracy theory

Why Do I Consider This Book Odd: Sigh…

Availability: It’s all over the Internet.

Here begins the second part of my look at Fjordman, the blogger who inspired  and was frequently cited by the Norway killer, Anders Behring Breivik (whom I will refer to as ABB throughout the rest of this discussion).  If you have not read part one, have a look at it here.

It would appear that my discussion of 2083 went a little viral, so welcome new readers!  I also welcome all comments, even those that may disagree with me entirely.  I encourage people to stick to reactions to the text but, of course, I understand political discussions will be inevitable where such a document is concerned.

It should also be mentioned that yes, I am verbose as a rule. Sorry about that but if length bothers you, you likely were not going to be interested in a quote-laden discussion of a 1500 page manifesto anyway. Also, please bear in mind this is a discussion of the book, not a review as such. I’m not judging the literary merit of the manifesto as much as I am just trying to reveal what the manifesto really contains and the minds of the people involved. I mean, I guess someone could review Mein Kampf or The New Libertarian Manifesto with an eye to the quality of the prose, but I really don’t recommend it.

2083: A European Declaration of Independence was so much more than a look at anti-Islam viewpoints that led to murder.  It contains a number of critiques, from how hip hop music is destroying black culture in the United States to misogynistic rants that contained rape apology.  It has reproductive ideas that sound like science fiction and instructions on how to make poison bullets.  It is all over the map. In many ways, I am glad I read this because it is a mistake to think that ABB was a lunatic who was just gunning for socialists whom he considered responsible for Muslim immigration.  His master plan, derived from the ideas of other thinkers, had something unsettling in store for almost everyone who wasn’t a white man. As progressive as we like to think we are, many of the more virulent ideas present in 2083 are rampant in political and social elements in the United States.

ABB is only a monster to us because he took his ideology to heart and shot people instead of blogging about it.  But he is only unique in how he displayed his hate.  And he is even less unique when you realize that all of his ideas came from other people.  As I said in my first article, in so many ways, Fjordman is more interesting to me than ABB, because Fjordman’s brain is on display here far more than ABB’s.  ABB is violently derivative.

This second part of my look at Fjordman will be when I show my snark teeth a bit more because it is going to cover  his misogyny that at times gives lie to his nationalist leanings, the messy contradictions present in Fjordman’s theories, his misuse of pop culture and literature, and some of the utterly bizarre things present in his writing.   Yeah, there will be snark.  I won’t be able to help it. Also, part two is mostly just a reaction to some of the more bizarre elements of Fjordman’s thought processes and misinterpretations. Mostly, this will be a look at the mind of a man who really is driven by hate to the point that he is rabid, inconsistent and just flat out weird.

Though I also mentioned in Part One that I find Fjordman infinitely more interesting than the murderer who cloaked himself in his ideas, Fjordman did not ask for any of this.  I did try to make a case that Fjordman engaged in rhetoric that seemed fated to send a True Believer on a violent rampage, but the fact is is that Fjordman was writing in that false, protective cloud that seems to envelop so many bloggers.  We write and write and write and it never seems possible that we could, without overtly meaning to, inspire someone to shoot up teenagers on an island.  Blogging is a new weapon in the arsenal of using the written word to change the world and Fjordman has, for me at least, become a cautionary tale. And as I said before, Fjordman is not pitiful, but he is definitely pitiable.  That is, he is pitiable when he isn’t actively pissing me off.  There are some things that no woman outside of the stay-at-home-daughters in the Vision Forum can read and not be filled with disgust.

So let’s begin Fjordman: Part Two.

Fjordman is a misogynist

A shocking level of hatred for women runs through Fjordman’s articles. Of course, because he hates Marxism and the political correctness he believes it has ushered in, he must denigrate women as he denigrates Muslims because he sees feminism as a largely Marxist entity. He feels women are, in fact, responsible for the Muslim immigration in Norway and makes his case in a very demeaning way. We begin with this referendum on female intelligence from pages 58-59:

Writer Charlotte Allen commented[25] on how Harvard University President Lawrence Summers caused a storm by giving a speech speculating that innate differences between the sexes may have something to do with the fact that proportionately fewer women than men hold top positions in science. Summers in 2006 announced his intention to step down at the end of the school year, in part due to pressure caused by this speech. “Even if you’re not up on the scientific research – a paper Mr. Summers cited demonstrating that, while women overall are just as smart as men, significantly fewer women than men occupy the very highest intelligence brackets that produce scientific genius – common sense tells you that Mr. Summers has got to be right. Recently, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences passed a vote of no confidence in Mr. Summers. Wouldn’t it be preferable to talk openly about men’s and women’s strengths and weaknesses?”

Yes, Ms. Allen, it would. Summers may have been wrong, but it’s dangerous once we embark on a road where important issues are not debated at all.

I wonder if Fjordman understands that these ideas have been debated for centuries? The “proof” that shows that women are stupider than men because of innate differences between the sexes is nothing new. And then there’s Charlotte Allen, pandering to these outdated notions, though one presumes she does not think such common sense applies to her. She seemingly has no clue she’s a parody in her jaded, time-worn attempt to become one of the boys by demeaning women to show she isn’t like the rest of us. And now she’s quoted admiringly by Fjordman in a manifesto by one of the worst mass murderers in European history. It’s hard to be angry at her knowing that is her reward for pandering to loathsome ideas. But worse than Allen, there is something particularly galling about the idea that a man who is younger than me seems to think that the discussions of female intellect didn’t happen until he was on the scene and that all these variables that men like him use to bash women are not shoved in our faces on a daily basis just because he is not there to witness the shoving. Oh yes, let us not skirt these issues that even the most ardent third wave feminist still has to stomach every time she asserts her intelligence because Fjordman thinks we aren’t discussing the prejudice used against us to his anti-cultural-Marxist satisfaction.

Yeah, that sucked. But it gets worse. So much worse. I am going to say without equivocation that if one were to try to know Fjordman from just the text he has written, it would be safe to say that he hates women. I know there is more to him than that, that this is hopefully ill-conceived rhetoric, but after reading many of his words I think he is a rape apologist. Having met many Nationalists of all stripes, some of whom I consider friends, not until I read Fjordman’s anti-woman rantings had I known a Nationalist to take such glee in what he considers to be the debasement of his countrywomen. Indeed, Fjordman seems very happy all those Labor Party women got what was coming to them – violent rape. From page 343, emphasis mine:

I have written several essays before on the damaging effects of Western feminism. The massive wave of violence and especially rapes in Western cities now is a form of warfare against whites, and it’s about time it is recognised as such. As this post from Gallia Watch[1] puts it:

“As in war, the winners seize the indigenous women all the while protecting their own. The whole rhetoric that aims to debase the European woman or France (‘I screw France like a whore’ says rap group Sniper) is a part of the feminisation of Europeans, of the idea that Europe is a land to be conquered, a habitat open to all forms of pillage. Are not the notorious ‘gang rapes’ another example of collective violence to European women, just as Russian soldiers did when they seized German women in a devastated Berlin in 1945. It all holds together. A tribe that does not protect its women is behaving as if they have already lost the war. Many of us don’t know this. But our enemies do.”

As a Western man, I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselvesThey have been waging an ideological, psychological and economic war against European men for several generations now, believing that this would make you “free.” The actual result is that you have less freedom of movement and security than ever, as a direct result of the immigrant policies supported by you and your buddies.

Okay, he starts off recognizing that rape is often used in war, a neutral enough statement. But then he gives in to some really base ideas. European women have brought rape on themselves because they demean the poor Western men and because they and their buddies, their chums, their bosom pals, invited all those big, Islamic rapists in. Too bad, too sad, Western Bitches is the tone of this passage. Rape apology is ugly, ugly, ugly, but strangely even more perverse when you are gloating over the rapes of the very women you hope to save from those Muslims.

Wallow in this bit of nastiness from page 343:

The truth is that any nation is always protected from external aggression by the men. The women can play a supporting role in this, but never more than that. For all the talk about “girl power” and “women kicking ass” which you see on movies these days, if the men of your “tribe” are too weak or demoralised to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other “tribes” before you can say “Vagina Monologues”.

Ah, I see! Fjordman’s version of feminism is a caricature of the women who own the book shop Women and Women First on the show Portlandia. Are there ardent feminists who approach being caricatures? Of course. Is it a good idea to state outright that those few women are the basis of the feminist movement and therefore have brought rape and enslavement upon themselves? No. It would be the same if I looked at every Norwegian man on the basis of Fjordman’s fallacious rhetoric and determined they must be exactly like this one extremist. Also, it’s seldom a good idea to base one’s philosophical views on how men or women are portrayed in the movies. Almost all mainstream movie characters are stereotypes.

Also, too bad I can’t file this under Fjordman’s victim mentality, which I will discuss later. Yep, that’s right folks. Fjordman is too demoralized to help a woman who is being raped or enslaved because some of us don’t want to be called “lady” and can open our own doors.

More of the same, also from page 343, and bear with me because this one really pissed me off:

Which means that if you break down men’s masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That’s exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years. So why are you surprised about the results? As you said, you can’t fool Mother Nature. Well, you have tried to fool her for a long time, and you are now paying the price for this.

I am a feminist. A pretty ardent one. I asked Mr Oddbooks just now if my beliefs have broken down his masculinity. He said no. I asked if the women he works with and knows socially who are feminists have broken down his masculinity. He said no. I asked him if he was unlikely to defend a woman, a child, or even an animal from a vicious attack after years of living with a feminist. He said no. More or less, he just goes about his life and if a woman gets cheesed when he opens a door for her, he just figures that woman didn’t want him to open the door, not that all women are castrating harpies. So I guess I really am surprised by the results, that a man who was born during the time of the feminist revolution in socially liberal society has kept his masculinity about him. Perhaps it is because as a feminist who isn’t a caricature, I forgot to cut off his balls and keep them in my purse next to my copy of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto? My bad.

And what’s this about fooling Mother Nature? What the hell does he even mean by this? That women are too weak to defend themselves and should have eschewed the feminist movement on the grounds that having self-determination was going to demoralize all the men? Does he mean that birth control and abortion have enabled women to prevent and end unwanted pregnancies, thus rejecting the dogma that we exist solely as a function of our natural reproductive capacities? I sense he meant the former but maybe he really means both.

But don’t worry, he forgives us for being so deluded, from page 344:

Western women have been subjected to systematic Marxist indoctrination meant to turn you into a weapon of mass destruction against your own civilisation, a strategy that has been remarkably successful.

You see, we women are just too dumb to see how we have been manipulated by the cultural Marxists. Oh dear, did we accidentally destroy civilization with our desire to control our fertility and our wish to be educated and have jobs if we want? Then he goes on to quote Robert Spencer, who tells a tale of a college student who sees no value to her white culture and worships Native Americans, and Lee Harris, who insists the Muslims are teaching their boys to be brutes while Western boys are taught to be wimps. In the face of all this rock-solid anecdata, I am clearly under the influence of Marxist ideology when I think its all pants.

But all this whining starts to take a sinister turn on page 345:

The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by  feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush.

So I guess Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Das Kapital.  Interesting. It would almost seem here as if Fjordman is saying that this massive, country-crushing Islam invasion is the fault of women. Women who are tools of cultural Marxism. Surely he isn’t saying it’s all women’s fault, is he? Yes, yes he is and it shines a sinister light on why ABB shot up the Labor Party camp.  Oh, and heaven FORBID that Gore had been President during 9/11. Whew! Thank god we avoided that national nightmare, am I right?

In the event that anyone sees wiggle room in the above, please read this from page 351:

To sum it up, it must be said that radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilisation, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and  self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims.

An inordinate amount of blame has been put on women in Fjordman’s odd conspiracy. Women deserve rape, women were duped by the Marxists, women led to the Islamification of Europe. In a way, it’s interesting that ABB didn’t target women exclusively, but more on how he picked his victims when I discuss him next week.

Fjordman is just about as offensive toward women as one man can be on his own. If he wants to up his game, he’s going to have to clone himself, as he shows on page 347:

It is correct, as feminists claim, that a hyper-feminine society is not as destructive as a hyper-masculine society. The catch with a too soft society is that it is unsustainable. It will get squashed as soon as it is confronted by more  traditional, aggressive ones. Instead of “having it all,” Western women risk losing everything. What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gang of Muslim youngsters? Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the Vagina Monologues at them?

As a feminist I have never heard anyone say that a hyper-feminine society is the way to go. In fact, it’s a symbol of facile under-thinking, the old saw that a matriarchy is less violent than a patriarchy. History doesn’t bear it out and it’s a tired, sad argument.

Fjordman’s obsession with The Vagina Monologues is weird. Just weird. If attacked women will do what we always have done, feminist movement or not. We will do our best to fight back and avoid rape or we will acquiesce however we must in order to survive. It may surprise misogynists cut like Fjordman, but even before feminists made men so soft that they cannot help victimized women, there was a long history of women getting raped, even by their own countrymen. Women to this day still get blamed for their rapes, though most rape apologists don’t often take this particular tack – rather, they blame the way the woman dressed or call her a slut who was asking for it. Women were raped long before Fjordman’s repellent theories came to light and somehow managed to cope, and we will be raped long after no one remembers Fjordman’s name, despite his outrageous trivialization of our assaults.

Less inflammatory but equally as bizarre is this, from page 348:

Are some feminists simply testing out men’s limits in the hope of finding some new balance between the sexes, or are they testing men to find out which men are strong enough to stand up to their demands, and thus which men can stand up to other men on their behalf?

Well, actually, this isn’t that bizarre. It’s the remark of a baffled man. And to be fair, women are baffled, too. I know some men like to mock us because some really do try to have it all – career, hobbies, many friends, family – and find the balance difficult and wear themselves out trying to make sense of their lives. But when your kind has spent hundreds of years with very few choices at your disposal and suddenly you are told you can indeed have it all, it seems like you should at least try. But none of this is a test, a universal exercise of the will of women to see if men will put us in our places. For a few maybe, but not the mass of women. This is our life, not some psycho-sexual experiment.

But even amongst the outrageous rape apology, I somehow took most offense to the trivialization that Fjordman assigns to the feminist movement, a movement that for all of its current extremist excesses began as a human rights movement for women. And I just get pissed off imagining him speaking these words to me or to any woman. From page 348, emphasis mine:

Strangely enough, after decades of feminism, many Western women are now lamenting the fact that Western men hesitate to get married. Here is columnist Molly Watson[12]:

We’re also pretty clued up about why our generation is delaying having children — and it has nothing to do with being failed by employers or health planners. Nor, despite endless newspaper features on the subject, does it have much to do with business women putting careers before babies. In my experience, the root cause of the epidemic lies with a collective failure of nerve among men our age. […] I don’t know a woman of my age whose version of living happily ever after fundamentally hinges on becoming editor, or senior partner, or surgeon, or leading counsel. But faced with a generation of emotionally immature men who seem to view marriage as the last thing they’ll do before they die, we have little option but to wait.

What happened to the slogan “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”? I’d just like to remind Ms. Watson that it was in fact the women who started this whole “single is best” culture that now permeates much of the West. Since women initiate most divorces and a divorce can potentially mean financial ruin for a man, it shouldn’t really be too surprising that many men hesitate to get involved at all. As one man put it: “I don’t think I’ll get married again. I’ll just find a woman I don’t like and give her a house.” At the same time, women  during the past few decades have made it a lot easier to have a girlfriend without getting married. So  women make it riskier to get married and easier to stay unmarried, and then they wonder why men “won’t commit?” Maybe too many women didn’t think all this feminism stuff quite through before jumping on the bandwagon?

I have no idea who Molly Watson is, but I will say that this us-against-them bullshit is wearing thin on both sides. Seriously. Despite Watson’s complaints and Fjordman’s accusations, all across the Marxist-infested West men and women are meeting and marrying, some divorcing, some not, many very happy. Funny, that…

But I’m mostly just annoyed at how little Fjordman thinks of women because his tone is not one of a man who even seems to like women. Had he the grace even to limit this nastiness to feminists, I could sort of understand it, but he speaks to all women, and he does it with a demeaning nastiness that exposes his deep-seated misogyny. I am not a young woman anymore. I was born during the second wave of feminism, just as the third wave really began. In my entire life I have never heard any feminist recite the old saw about fish and bicycles. Not once. Not even in college when I knew actual radical feminists. Using that line against single women who lament their singleness has zero relevance and makes Fjordman sound even older than me.

Who, other than Fjordman, says that women started this whole single is best idea? Who actually thinks single is best and made it into a cultural movement that negatively affects Fjordman? Almost every feminist I know is married or is in an exclusive long-term relationship. Those who are single are single for reasons that I assure you have little to do with Marxist dialectic.  And who says women initiate most divorces and if that is true, what are the reasons? Are these women abused, did their husbands cheat, did they simply fall out of love as they got older. Though I don’t know it is true, even if women do initiate most divorces that is not necessarily a referendum on men or even on marriage.

Oh, and how dumb were we girls to “jump on the bandwagon” of feminism before we thought through the terrible ramifications of being able to vote, own property, have access to education and the right to choose what work we prefer! Seriously, the feminist movement, whether dude-bros want to admit it or not, is about more than just destroying the Western family and cock-blocking innocent men who just want to get married.

Here he uses the most extreme examples possible to prove that feminism is destroying the world. From page 346:

Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill[6] that would collectively tax Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited that Swedish men were just like the Taliban. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right[7]: All men are like the Taliban.

Admittedly I do not speak Swedish, but I’m pretty sure this is an accurate translation of the reaction of 99% of Swedish citizens to such offensive, bombastic statements: “Oh my god, what a stupid and terrible thing to say. That woman is an idiot. Let’s make sure Schyman’s new party, Feminist Initiative, never gets more than 2% of the vote, and most of the time not even 1%.” Hmm… Could it be that she said something really outrageous, like Pamela Geller does, in order to get attention? Is that a trick only the Right can use? Does Fjordman think she really must believe that all the men in Sweden are like the Taliban and that a newspaper agreed with her means everyone must agree with that chauvinistic, hateful statement? Fjordman is like cafeteria Christians – he cherry-picks whatever proves his point, even if the point, when looked at with any depth, proves that fewer than 2% of Sweden on a good day has any faith in Gudrun Schyman.

More of the same from page 346:

In the year 2000, Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel and the action group Unf**ked Pussy entered the stage during the live broadcast of the Miss Sweden contest. She also wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man[8],” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, in 2004. Rytel explained why she hates white men — they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed — and just to make things clear, she added, “no white men, please… I just puke on them, thank you very much.”

Using Joanna Rytel as an example of what the average Swedish woman feels about men is like taking John Lyden, circa 1977, and claiming the average Brit longed for anarchy. This analysis of the depravity of women is clownish at best.

Why discuss all of this? What relevance does it have in discussing the Norway murderer’s manifesto? Well, as I will explain later when I discuss ABB, there is a misogynistic undertone to everything that ABB did. Hatred of women is strong in his philosophy. He, like Fjordman, blames women for permitting Muslim immigration. He sees the entire feminist movement as dupes for the cultural Marxists whom he thinks have ruined the world. More personally, ABB loathed being raised by a single mother and took a shocking amount of glee in discussing what one can only assume he thought were his mother’s sexual habits. His sister’s too.

This hatred of women in the political, the philosophical and the theoretical is why violence against women is so common. There are men on this planet who genuinely think that any bit of progress women and people of color achieve is a net loss of their freedom. And those men are present in American politics. They are present in American religion. That again is why this is so fascinating to me. I may not have known Fjordman’s name, but the face of his hate for women was certainly a face I recognize. I cannot say it enough – we sweep these mentalities under the rug at our own risk. Each time we assume a man with a gun is a monster or that the man who inspired the killer is an aberration, we fail to understand how common monsters are, and how seldom an aberration is really that atypical. If we refuse to look at the whole of ABB, it makes it easy not to look at the whole of those who are lurking in our own stomping grounds.

Fjordman has some weird, but not entirely unpredictable ideas

There are not enough ellipses in the world to express how truly strange some of Fjordman’s beliefs are. Take this from page 59:

“When lifelong Torontonians are hot for decapitation, when Yorkshiremen born and bred and into fish ‘n’ chips and cricket and lousy English pop music self-detonate on the London Tube, it would seem that the phenomenon of  “re-primitivised man” has been successfully exported around the planet. It’s reverse globalisation: The pathologies of the remotest backwaters now have franchise outlets in every Western city.”

It is possible to see a connection here. While multiculturalism is spreading ideological tribalism in our universities, it is spreading physical tribalism in our major cities. Since all cultures are equal, there is no need to preserve Western civilisation, nor to uphold our laws.

Base impulses are human traits, not proof of globalism creating “re-primitivised man,” whatever the hell that means. Bullshit theories abound about why it is human beings are violent, enjoy violence and generally shed their civility at the slightest provocation but I’m just gonna go ahead and put it out there that human beings were violent long before “multiculturalism” exposed the cultured Torontonian and Yorkshireman to the primitive rage of all those non-whites who just ruin it for civilization.

Take this antiquated idea from page 59:

While Chinese, Indian, Korean and other Asian Universities are graduating millions of motivated engineers and scientists every year, Western Universities have been reduced to little hippie factories, teaching about the wickedness of the West and the blessings of barbarism.

Oh god, Fjordman thinks all colleges are Berkeley in 1969. In college I myself read plenty of Shakespeare and plenty of Locke and Rousseau between learning about the blessings of barbarism, which mainly came in the form of keg parties instead of an actual course curriculum.  This is also strange coming from a man who is only 36. This is what I expect people hear from their elderly relatives around the Sunday dinner table. It’s just the same crap that threatened Little Men utter every time their gilded cages get rattled. It would be laughable if Fjordman’s strange take on life didn’t somehow inspire a man to kill 77 people.

File this under, “Oh god, not this again” from 738:

Less than eight years after the Jihadist attacks on the USA, a President raised as a Muslim with the middle name “Hussein” hails Islam’s great contributions to American and Western culture. The USA currently looks more like a defeated nation than the world’s sole remaining superpower. It’s the only nation in history where the majority of the population has elected a member of an organisation known for hating the majority population of that country.

In the event that anyone reading this does not understand these facts, please note that Obama was not raised as a Muslim. He attended Muslim-run schools, but also attended Catholic-run schools and no one is saying he is a Catholic. He was born in America, was raised with American ideals, and even if he were a Muslim, that in no way is incompatible with with being a good American. The rhetoric that sprang up around Obama has shown the frightening racist underbelly of this country. I am still shocked when I read things like this and they are one of the best examples I can find for how fuzzy thinking (the name Hussein indicates religious preference, attending a school equals lifelong beliefs) negatively affects the world. It’s a few steps from feeling uncomfortable that a man of color is running the United States to developing an intricate web of lies to conceal your racism. It’s not that he’s black – it’s that he’s a Muslim, he’s not a citizen, he lied about his education, etc. Again, the ideas that led ABB to killing 77 people, the ideas that are included in the manifesto of a mass murderer, are running strong in America.

And then we have this from page 737:

I remember when the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina, author of Understanding Muhammad, compared the personality cult surrounding Barack Obama to that of Fascist leaders. This might seem exaggerated, but there is definitely a personality cult surrounding Obama which is unprecedented and deeply unhealthy.

Yes, Obama has a personality cult built around him, what with all those pageants he holds as he expounds in a mighty manner, flanked with the symbols to represent him and him alone. Statues of him have replaced those of beloved statesmen and heroes, the press is banned from making disparaging remarks, citizens are required to have his pictures up in their homes… Yeah, all of that is happening with Obama. If you think that he is assailed at every turn by Birthers, racists, and Tea Baggers, you are sorely mistaken.

It’s interesting to me how diverse, though paranoid and strange, Fjordman’s writings were, how his mind bounced from one idea in an article to the next. He has a hyperactive mind and one that makes large leaps without looking at the logical ground below him. More of this will be evident as I discuss some of his inconsistencies and errors.

Fjordman’s words are full of strange contradictions and odd reasoning

Actually, finding all of these contradictions made me like Fjordman a little because inconsistency, to me at least, means he hasn’t set his beliefs in stone. I see contradiction as openings through which he can reapproach his repellent ideas and come to different conclusions. But I’ve been wrong before… It’s probably more likely that a brain that settles on the uneasy logic of conspiracy theory may become so unfocused that continual reason is difficult.

Here we have some contradictory thinking from page 347:

Are women more stupid and less enlightened than men, since they in such great numbers are paving the way for their own submission?

He comes up with an equally provocative answer:

“When women are paving the way for sharia, this is presumably because women want sharia.”

They don’t want freedom because they feel attracted to subservience and subjugation.

Perhaps the question Fjordman needs to ask is why white men suck so much because he can’t have it both ways. He makes the case that women stupidly rejected patriarchy and have demeaned white men to the point that they are feminized. But then he states that women are attracted to strong, brutal men who will dominate them. Then why did they shake off the yoke of the Western patriarchy? If this was all about submission one assumes any woman would be pleased to submit to a manly Norseman. Is it really the case that Fjordman feels inadequate and subconsciously thinks he is being thrown over for strong, manly, Muslim men? Or is he just a really bad theorist and is throwing every accusation against women he can make to see what sticks, contradictions be damned? I have no idea. But it is interesting to contemplate…

This is a total WTF moment from page 355-356:

And it has no in any way eradicated the basic sexual attraction between feminine women and masculine men. If people do not find this in their own country, they travel to another country to find it, which is now easier than ever. A striking number of Scandinavian men find their wives in East Asia, Latin America or other nations with a more traditional view of femininity, and a number of women find partners from more conservative countries, too. Not everyone, of course, but the trend is unmistakable. Scandinavians celebrate “gender equality” and travel to the other side of the world to find somebody actually worth marrying.

This manly-man, feminine-woman stuff veers very close to the sort of idiocy espoused (often hilariously) by Christian fundamentalist organizations like Vision Forum. Women need to be in skirts, long haired and with cute little voices and men must be manly men, doing manly things because if women cut their hair they evidently grow testicles and if men don’t stand with a wide stance, arms crossed, they evidently become homosexuals. But Fjordman is not a Christian and he doesn’t explain himself. Would he reject a woman with short hair in pants? Who knows because it’s a strange statement. Then add that I don’t think I have ever seen a Nationalist insist that feminine women and masculine men can only be found in other cultures. This whole paragraph was bizarre, creating unanswered questions and making one wonder how it is that Fjordman can see the logic in leaving one’s culture for love when he loathes the ideas of immigration. Would he see the logic in a manly-Norseman marrying a submissive, feminine Muslim woman?

Another “yeah, right” moment from page 409:

Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in one court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents. Swedish politicians want to continue Muslim immigration because it boosts the economy, yet the evidence so far indicates that it mainly boosts the number of gang rapes. Meanwhile, research shows that fear of honour killings is a very real issue for many immigrant girls in Sweden. 100.000 young Swedish girls[4] live as virtual prisoners of their own families.

Let’s ask some questions. I can’t address the number of rapes committed by immigrants in Sweden. But I can ask this: What does Fjordman care about all the daughters of Muslim extremists living in Europe? He wants their parents deported, expelled, sent back to their country of origin. If he gives a crap about these suffering girls, how is sending them away going to help them. Why does he bring it up when it makes no difference to him at all? And does he really care for the suffering of these girls when he seems to gloat over the rapes of his countrywomen? It is baffling.

Whawhawhat! This is from an article about feminism, on page 350:

In Europe, Newsweek writes about[15] how packs of wolves are now making a comeback in regions of Central Europe: “A hundred years ago, a burgeoning, land-hungry population killed off the last of Germany’s wolves.” “Our postcard view of Europe, after all, is of a continent where every scrap of land has long been farmed, fenced off and settled. But the continent of the future may look rather different. “Big parts of Europe will renaturalise,” says Reiner Klingholz, head of the Berlin Institute for Population Development. Bears are back in Austria. In Swiss alpine valleys, farms have been receding and forests are growing back in. In parts of France and Germany, wildcats and ospreys have re-established their range.”

“In Italy, more than 60 percent of the country’s 2.6 million farmers are at least 65 years old. Once they die out, many of their farms will join the 6 million hectares (one third of Italian farmland) that has already been abandoned.” “With the EU alone needing about 1.6 million immigrants a year above its current level to keep the working-age population stable between now and 2050, a much more likely source of migrants would be Europe’s Muslim neighbours, whose young populations are set to almost double in that same time.” It is numbers like these that have induced Phillip Longman to foresee “the Return of Patriarchy[16]” and proclaim that “conservatives will inherit the Earth:”

So the return of native animals to Europe is a corollary to the influx of Muslims and both indicate a return to the Patriarchy. This is some strange reasoning. Very strange.

Why does all of this matter when discussing a mass murderer’s manifesto? Well, you see, when people cannot exercise the mental clarity to reject conspiracy theory, it can lead to other problems with thinking. I don’t like slippery slope arguments in this case because who can possibly know what goes on in the human mind? It’s hard to make judgement calls like this, but in Fjordman’s case, his fuzzy and strange reasoning in accepting conspiracy theory as truth point to even fuzzier logic in other areas. And while I don’t know entirely what good it does anyone to know this, it certainly does no one any harm knowing it. At the very least, it is an interesting look into an unsteady mind. (And unsteady does not mean insane or crazy – just lacking in logic.)

Fjordman’s capacity to judge a good source is questionable at best

I often wonder if the capacity to believe in conspiracy theory is also a sign of a complete inability to weigh the validity and believability of sources. It appears at times as if the True Believer is willing to take whatever proves their belief, accepting the worst “proof” that comes their way. From pages 51-52:

Kari Vogt, historian of religion at the University of Oslo, has stated that Ibn Warraq’s book “Why I am Not a Muslim” is just as irrelevant to the study of Islam as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are to the study of Judaism. She is widely considered as one of the leading expert on Islam in Norway, and is frequently quoted in national media on matters related to Islam and Muslim immigration. People who get most of their information from the mainstream  media, which goes for the majority of the population, will thus be systematically fed biased information and half-truths about Islam from our universities, which have largely failed to uphold the ideal of free inquiry. Unfortunately, this situation is pretty similar at universities[1] and colleges[2] throughout the West[3].

You see, Ibn Warraq is an anti-Islam polemicist. Using his works as an accurate look at Islam is indeed akin to looking at Henry Ford for an accurate representation of Judaism. This is important, a common problem one will encounter time and time again with Fjordman. His willingness to accept as fact the worst sort of evidence and conspiracy theory is troubling and gives lie to all those who commend his intellectual acuity and honesty.

More willingness to accept bad evidence, from page 57:

According to Robert Spencer[23], “Shakespeare is just the latest paradigmatic figure of Western Christian culture to be remade in a Muslim-friendly manner.” Recently the [US] State Department asserted, without a shred of evidence, that Christopher Columbus (who in fact praised Ferdinand and Isabella for driving the Muslims out of Spain in 1492, the same year as his first visit to the Americas) was aided on his voyages by a Muslim navigator. “The state of American education is so dismal today that teachers themselves are ill-equipped to counter these historical fantasies.”

Go ahead and Google “Christopher Columbus Muslim Navigator” and see what happens. Maybe the first site offered will be a Robert Spencer pile of crap overreacting wildly to the fact that Muslims learned how to navigate the seas using astronomy?  His bombastic reaction to it takes up more intellectual space than the idea itself.  People managed celestial navigation across many cultures but Robert Spencer needs for there to be a large conspiracy to lie about Muslim contributions to science in order to fuel his conspiracy that Marxists are attempting to destroy the Western world by creating myths about Muslim accomplishments. For the mass of humanity, there is really no better way to understand that a fact may be bad than to know that a bigot is behind it. Taking Robert Spencer’s word on anything to do with Muslims is like asking the Grand Wizard of the KKK to explain why blacks are inferior.

You sleep with dogs, you wake with a burning hatred for Muslims, it would seem. Fjordman’s ideas are hardly unique to him and were shaped by some really crappy thinkers, whom he admires and cites in the face of all reason. From page 334:

As columnist Diana West of the Washington Times points out, we should shift from a prodemocracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive. Calling this the War on Terror was a mistake. Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog suggests the slogan “Take Back the Culture,” thus focusing on our internal struggle for Western culture.

I think I’ve made my utter disgust for Diana West clear by this point. Baron Bodissey is new to me but how could one not put their utter faith in a person writing with a pseudonym, or maybe he or she thinks it is a nom de guerre. Regardless, the good Baron writes for Gates of Vienna, a repellent site with an interesting tag line: “At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.” Yeah, more of that siege and war language, too.

Fjordman writes an entire article praising Diana West’s ridiculous book, The Death of the Grown-Up, beginning on page 359:

According to Diana West[1], the organising thesis of her book “is that the unprecedented transfer of cultural authority from adults to adolescents over the past half century or so has dire implications for the survival of the Western world.” Having redirected our natural development away from adulthood and maturity in order to strike the pop-influenced pose of eternally cool youth – ever-open, non-judgmental, self-absorbed, searching for (or just plain lacking) identity – we have fostered a society marked by these same traits. In short: Westerners live in a state of perpetual adolescence, but also with a corresponding perpetual identity crisis. West thinks maturity went out of style in the rebellious 1960s, “the biggest temper tantrum in the history of the world,” which flouted authority figures of any kind.

Diana West is a terrible thinker. Yes folks, the “rebellious 1960s” that brought the Civil Rights movement in the United States, a challenge to the status quo that finally provided women with unprecedented freedoms and minorities with the hope of safety and access, created an identity crisis resulting in a temper tantrum. Such a trivialization of the accomplishments of the 1960s is a greater indictment against her than I could levy with a million critiques. Clearly, the obvious answer to such a crisis would have been to remain in the stasis of the 1950s when dad wore a double-breasted suit to the office, mom vacuumed in heels and the kids spat on black children who wanted to come to their schools. Westerners don’t live in a state of perpetual adolescence. Rather, people like Diana West misinterpret attempts at egalitarianism with immaturity. And her vision of what the world should look like, how we should behave, deeply influenced ABB as well.

From page 334:

As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says, we should explain why Islam encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis, intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) in Islamic countries.

I hate to paint with such a broad brush but if you are willing to throw your beliefs in with a bigot like Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, it’s going to be hard to take you seriously as an authority on anything but hate.

From page 625:

I have watched, for the better part of a year, a number of decent human beings including, but not limited to, Pamela Geller, Paul Belien, Diana West, the Baron and Dymphna from the Gates of Vienna blog and many others, being at the receiving end of a vicious smear campaign from Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs which is unlike anything I have seen in my life. After engaging in an insane witch-hunt on imaginary Fascists, whose ranks seem to grow every month, Mr. Johnson now suddenly chooses to look the other way in silence when very real Fascists use violence to silence their critics in a major Western city. I admit that makes me angry, and I think I have the right to be so.

Aha! AHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, I don’t mean to mock excessively but if I had been on the fence about whether or not Charles Johnson has turned over a new leaf, separating himself from all of those “decent human beings” helped me make up my mind. Any side of the fence that permits Pamela Geller to dwell is the opposite of where I want to be morally, socially and intellectually.

Fjordman’s disgust for the modern world makes him sound like a crank

Fjordman is younger than me by a few years and yet he still sounds like a fatuous old man, harking back on the great accomplishments of old. From page 340:

Churchill’s speeches were a great inspiration to the British during WW2, but also promised that “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” Before the Battle of Britain, he delivered the immortal line, “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” How would today’s decadent and pleasure-loving Westerners react to a similar speech? I think Winston would have to re-write it to something along these lines: “We shall defend our continent, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the ice cream trucks, we shall fight on the cable TV cars, we shall fight in the Jacuzzis and the spas, we shall fight in the nail salons; we shall never surrender.”

So, Fjordman thinks that the comforts of a peaceful society have made everyone weak, decadent and just plain worthless. I believe this was written in 2007, which means Fjordman would have been in his early 30s when he typed these words. It should always be a warning when people who are this young hark back to a time when people were hungry, desperate and dying in wars as his or her inspiration for the future. But the best part of this bizarre tendency is that Fjordman does not see how he himself is a part of that which he considers craven. “We shall fight to defend our anti-Muslim websites, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the group blogs, we shall fight on our wireless routers, we shall fight with our message boards and PDF files turned into poorly selling books on Amazon, we shall fight safely knowing that most of us will write using pseudonyms, we shall never surrender.

Take this from page 351:

“In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage.” “People will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values.”

It’s a bit terrifying, this idea that people may begin to have children as a means of ensuring they are taken care of when they are old. For those of us not in love with the idea of producing children in numbers that would make a Quiverfull adherent proud, it is an indicator of an unstable culture wherein times will be too tight to save and pensions will be unreliable. I also wonder how having to care for aging parents will affect the kids who have to house and support them. Will they have the time and financial means to have their own children? No welfare state means no health care from the government. How many kids will it take to ensure mom and dad live comfortably into their 80s and 90s and what impact will it have on their own families and financial well-being? As is stated in this manifesto, there is a dark side to every idea of utopia and this one is no different. It is not a bad idea to take care of one’s parents but it is a bad idea to toss this out there without thinking of the implications of turning the clock back 200 years.

Fjordman is completely lacking self-awareness

Let’s look at how Fjordman can see errors everywhere but never in his own mind, from 56:

It became normal to view culture from the outside, not as a mode of thought which defines our moral inheritance, but as an elaborate disguise, through which artificial powers represent themselves as natural rights. Thanks to Marx, debunking theories of culture have become a part of culture. And these theories have the structure pioneered by Marx: they identify power as the reality, and culture as the mask; they also foretell some future ‘liberation’ from the lies that have been spun by our oppressors.”

It is striking to notice that this is exactly the theme of author Dan Brown’s massive international hit The Da Vinci Code from 2003, thought to be one of the ten best-selling books of all time. In addition to being a straightforward thriller, the novel claims that the entire modern history of Christianity is a conspiracy of the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus and his marriage to Mary Magdalene.

Forgive me for being crude, but who gives a shit? What does Dan Brown’s thriller about a Christian conspiracy have to do with any of this except demonstrate that fiction often employs conspiracies as plot points? If one were to be really uncharitable, one would wonder how it is that Fjordman recognized that Dan Brown was writing conspiracy and yet failed to understand that fear of all those rabid Marxists and their horrible political correctness and those Muslims and their agenda to enslave non-Muslims is equal fodder for fictional conspiracies.

Take this page 618, as Fjordman discusses liberals:

Apparently, your worth as an intellectual is measured in how grandiose your ideas are. The greater your visions, the more dazzling your intellect is and thus the greater prestige should be awarded to you. Whether those visions actually correspond to reality and human nature is of secondary importance. In fact, many a self-proclaimed intellectual will be downright offended by the petty considerations of his more pedestrian fellow citizens, concerned with what effects his ideas will have in real life. The fact that some people could get hurt from his ideas doesn’t discourage him.

This is tragic-comic. Fjordman is criticizing those who encourage multiculturalism and has no idea he is describing himself.

More of the same from page 625, an article describing a pissing contest Fjordman had with Charles Johnson from Little Green Footballs, wherein again he fails utterly to see the irony in what he is saying, emphasis mine:

One of the reasons why hardcore anti-Semites (David Duke[21] would be a case in point) are unreliable allies is that they hate Jews so much that it shuts down the rational parts of their brain and they end up making common cause with Muslims, based on mutual hatred. The same logic applies to hardcore anti-Europeans, of which there are many even at “conservative” websites such as LGF. They have an irrational hatred, a dark cloud in their minds which prevents them from seeing the world clearly. In a way, some LGF-ers thus have more in common with David Duke than they’d like to admit. If mindless anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism should be considered a problem then so should mindless anti-Europeanism.

Yeah, none of this could be used to describe Fjordman.

From page 675:

These days we hear so many arguments against Christianity, such as from the ‘proselytising atheists’ like Dawkins and Hitchens, and then we hear the arguments from the secular right which attack Christianity for being too pacifistic. The atheists claim that Christianity fomented violence, and that it is as militant and bloodthirsty as Islam, or in fact worse, and on the other side, we hear that Christianity is a religion of slaves, which weakens and emasculates the West. So Christianity gets it from both sides; it’s too militant, it causes wars and persecutions, and at the same time, it’s a religion that turns men into milquetoast pacifists. Does this make any sense?

Yes, it does, it is called interpretation. Neither assessment is wholly correct. Pity he could not see this where his own interpretations were concerned

Fjordman has a ridiculous victim mentality

From the chapter wherein Fjordman was explaining to women why they deserve all the rapes they brought upon themselves, on page 343:

In the big scheme of things, the truth is that European men have treated women with greater respect than the men of almost any other major civilisation on earth. And I don’t mean just in the modern age, I mean for many centuries. Yet we are the one group of men who are most demonised and attacked, whereas non-white men get treated with much greater respect. What white men see from this is that white Western women prefer men who treat them like crap, and disrespect men who treat them with respect. This isn’t exactly a smart way to behave if you want to be treated with dignity.

Oh, for the love of sanity. Is this not one of the best Nice Guy rants you’ve read in a while. Oh, the poor white men like Fjordman who just want to love and cherish the white women but they reject his niceness! They want men who treat them terribly. And all us women who are married to nice men, caring men, wonderful men look at Fjordman, this seeming twerp-man who is assigning a political motive for romantic failure with women, and knows all too well what is happening.  Ugh. I mean, really. Does any man with any self-awareness assign the motives of the handful of women who didn’t want to be his girlfriend to all the women around them? Can this mopey, college-aged sentiment that girls like bastards and boys like doormats or sluts really be a part of any sort of adult social discourse? Haven’t we all agreed that some men and some women are not nice people and move on to find the ones who are genuinely nice? If not, may I suggest that we all do that now. This very minute. Please?

Fjordman is unintentionally hilarious while being utterly inconsistent as he denounces all victimhood but his own. From page 346:

Western feminists have cultivated a culture of victimhood in the West, where you gain political power through your status in the victim hierarchy. In many ways, this is what Political Correctness is all about. They have also demanded, and largely got, a re-writing of the history books to address an alleged historic bias; their world view has entered the school curriculum, gained a virtual hegemony in the media and managed to portray their critics as “bigots.” They have even succeeded in changing the very language we use, to make it less offensive. Radical feminists are the vanguard of PC.

Fjordman makes it very clear that women have obtained enough power that we are able to completely diminish Western men. We demand that men stop opening doors for us and demand that men stop patting our asses, and BOOM! The Western man was so diminished he could not even act if he saw a woman being raped by a Muslim. But then in the same article he says that women are cultivating a sense of victimhood through a victim hierarchy that gives them political power. How do these two ideas fit together, that women have demeaned men through our place on the victim hierarchy? And if he is correct and white men are the victims of Islam and feminists, how come they are not ranked on the victim hierarchy? Rhetorical questions because the answer is clear – Western men are excluded from everything, lonely in their victimhood.

Also, it is curious that he finds anything wrong with changing language we use to make it less offensive. At times it seems like many people who are overreacting to things like using polite language are indeed Western men who feel that “political correctness” threatens their previously unassailable status as arbiters of social action and reaction. As an online friend once told me, “To many white men there is no greater mental blow than to know they can no longer call a black man a n****r with impunity.” It’s almost comical to consider that anyone ever would be upset because they can no longer use offensive language to whomever they want with no consequences. It’s horrifying to think that any man would feel victimized by being unable to use words that demean others.

Fjordman misuses pop culture and literature to his own strange ends

It was shocking to see many forms of media that I love filtered through his brain. The first such shock occurred when he used Josh Whedon’s Serenity to explain a point he was making about the people behind the Eurabia conspiracy. From pages 304-305:

On the little-known planet Miranda, a gas called Pax was added to the air processors. It was intended to calm the population, weed out aggression. It worked. The people stopped fighting. They also stopped doing everything else, including breeding and physical self-preservation. A small minority of the population had the opposite reaction to this pacification. Their aggression increased beyond madness, and they killed most of the others. Tens of millions of people quietly let themselves be wiped out.

Movie director Joss Whedon is careful to point out that the Alliance isn’t some evil empire, but rather a force that is largely benevolent. They meant it for the best, to create a better world, a world without sin. However, according to Whedon, “Whenever you create Utopia, you find something ugly working underneath it.”

So I guess in Fjordman’s mind he and Spencer, Bat Ye’or, Pamela Geller, Diana West, and Daniel Pipes are all browncoats? Is Fjordman Captain Tightpants? Of the bunch of them, he’s the best suited for the role. At least he compared his own fiction to another fiction. It may have been done without an ounce of self-awareness, but it’s a start.

From page 523:

I have compared Islam to the movie “The Matrix,” where people are turned into slaves by living in a make-believe reality designed to keep them in chains. In the movie, everybody who hasn’t been completely unplugged from this artificial reality is potentially an agent for the system. I have gradually come to the conclusion that this is the sanest way to view Muslims, too.

Pro-tip: This is how every person who has stumbled upon a great conspiratorial truth feels. They feel like they are in a real life version of The Matrix. This is so common that it should be seen as a clue. If you feel as if you have stumbled across a great truth that the sleeping, masses of humans are unaware of, then chances are you are dabbling in conspiracy theory. Those who discovered that the aliens shaped the Earth and enslaved humans compare their awakening to The Matrix. Those who discovered that the Jews have a plan to conquer the planet and enslave non-Jews compare their awakening to The Matrix. And on and on and on.

From page 337:

As the quote goes in the Hollywood classic “The Third Man”:

“…in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love — they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”

Some would say that’s a tad unfair to the Swiss. Switzerland has been at the forefront of many technological developments for a long time, and we could probably learn from their example with frequent referendums and direct democracy. But it’s true that European renewals can be messy stuff.

Muslims always claim that Islamic influences triggered the Renaissance. That’s not true. But maybe it will be this time. Perhaps this life-and-death struggle with Islam is precisely the slap in the face that we need to regroup and revitalise our civilisation.

Well, if that isn’t the best reason I have ever read to battle the Muslims – Europe needs to invent something better than a cuckoo clock. In this strange attempt to sell bigoted war against Muslims he needs something more than his perception that Islam is the worst thing ever to happen to Europe. He also needs to see the upside. “Hey, we engaged in a massive, pointless war based on religious bigotry but at least we can now say we are poised for another Renaissance once we regain our moral legitimacy and faith in ourselves as decent people.” Also note the hyperbolic language: “life-and-death struggle with Islam”. War, urgency. At some point Fjordman is going to have to own the nature of the language he used.

Fjordman invokes Beckett, finding parallels between his play and Europe’s current inability to find a great leader, from page 339:

I once had the pleasure of watching the absurdist theatre play called “Waiting for Godot,” by Samuel Beckett. Two men called Vladimir and Estragon sit around waiting for a man named Godot. Mr. Godot never shows up, of course. It is years ago now, but for some reason, I remembered it recently when watching the political situation in Europe.

He goes on to say, on page 340:

We complain about weak leaders, but maybe we keep producing weak leaders because we, as a people, are weak? And if we finally find a Churchill, will the press rip him apart for whatever flaw they can find? Could the real Churchill have been elected today, or would the media eat him alive because of his heavy drinking and replace him with a slick boy scout? And if a strong leader steps forward, will he have a democratic mindset or will he have a darker agenda? Churchill certainly understood Islam.

And he goes on to quote some of Churchill’s most virulent objections to Islam. Would it have been horrible had Churchill not been elected as Prime Minister decades ago? You bet. The world was an utterly different place then, socially, culturally and technologically. But the fact is the world is different now, much to the consternation of men like Fjordman and no, the world does not now need a drunk religious bigot running the UK. Full stop. Yes, Churchill would be ripped apart were he running for office today and we can all debate whether or not that is a good thing.  He was the man his country needed the moment they needed him but that does not extrapolate into him being the leader we need now unless you are person yearning to return to the past.

But this Beckett play does not illustrate that point, that we get the leaders we deserve. Get ten people who have read Beckett in a room and you will have at least nine opinions about what the play is about . The situation in Europe is not an existentialist play wherein people are blinded by the banality of their lives to the point that all activity is a passive, recursive search for that which they cannot recognize.  Europe is a place that has made its needs known, regardless of how much Fjordman wants to believe the Eurabia theory and how he thinks everyone is deluded but him and his cadre of the Chosen Ones in the Know. Rather, Europeans protest, they react, they riot and given the multi-party systems in some countries, have a very malleable government that changes according to the will of the people. Europe is not Vladimir and Estragon made large, a passive, stupid group of people awaiting a salvation they would not be able to recognize were it to come. The European people have chosen the government they want. Beckett’s blank slate of a play can be used to represent almost any idea, but I have to say it cannot be used as an allegory for a continent that does, in fact, react politically.

It’s just that all those people who are reacting politically are doing it wrong, in Fjordman’s eyes. Not to diminish Churchill, for he was far more than the sum of his moral and physical failures, but rest assured, if the Europeans wanted a drunk Islamaphobe running their respective countries, they are not in such an existential quagmire that they could not find the man or woman who suited their needs.

And now I get to be all kinds of pissed off. Shit just got real. Fjordman invoked Wilfred Owen. For those who are new readers, I am not a woman given to much love for poetry. Rather, there are a few poets whom I absolutely love. Cummings, Tennyson, Hopkins and others, but I truly adore poor, doomed, brilliant Wilfred Owen. From the poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” a line will stay with me until I die: “As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.” This image haunts me.  Fjordman quotes from the poem “Anthem for a Doomed Youth” on page 341:

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
-Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles’ rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,-
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for them from sad shires.
What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in the hands of boys but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of good-byes.
The pallor of girls’ brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.

I can understand why Wilfred Owen felt that war was futile, rotting away in the trenches for some cause he didn’t even understand. But it isn’t true that war is worse than everything. Sharia is worse than war.

How can anyone read a poem like this and not quail from war? How can a man, who by his own admission lived under the “Pax Americana,” know a thing about war? How can he know a thing about living under sharia? How can he, from his perspective as a man who has lived a life of comfort and peace, say that something he hasn’t even experienced is worse than war, which he also has not experienced? How can he think he knows better than a man whose words survived his wretched death in the trenches.

My disgust at invoking the name of Wilfred Owen in this wretched mess is only matched by my disgust for those who, after reading the above, wherein Fjordman says there are worse things than war, that sharia is worse than war, will still maintain he never once used violent rhetoric. This passage is a call to arms, full stop. It is not a call to political action. It is a refutation of the idea that war is horrible, an urging to see sharia, which does not exist in Norway, as something to go to war over. The idea is as clear as the words he uses to express the idea and to claim this is not a direct exhortation for war is a refusal to read and comprehend. I just wish he had found a jingoistic poet to back his war-lust.

And just when I thought he couldn’t make me any angrier, Fjordman proves me wrong on page 347:

The English author Fay Weldon has noted that “For women, there is something sexually very alluring about submission.” And as Hedegaard dryly notes, if submission is what many women seek, the feminised Danish men are boring compared to desert sheikhs who won’t allow you to go outside without permission. Muslims like to point out that there are more women than men in the West who convert to Islam, and this is in fact partly true. Islam means “submission.” Is there something about submission that is more appealing to some women than it is to most men? Do women yield more easily to power?

Oh man, I’m just gonna go ahead and say it: I know a lot more about Fay Weldon and what she thinks about sexual submission than Fjordman does. Fay Weldon writes about the complexities of human relationships and some of her characters are submissive to brutal men. Some are not. Some are ardent feminists. Some are not. And it’s hard to know where Weldon stands herself in these matters, as she has not lived a life that can be easily summed up by assigning social and sexual labels to it. But in her writings, the female characters live varied lives. Older women look back at the feminist struggles and wince at some of the things they did. Some don’t. Younger characters who have always known freedom never hark back. But the context is and always has been that women’s lives are their own, regardless of how they relate to men.

I cannot even determine what book or interview Fjordman took this quote from. I don’t have Weldon’s books memorized and a Google shows me that the only place this quote evidently appears online is in Fjordman’s rant, reproduced over and over across the web. Google the quote yourself if you doubt me. This is more evidence of Fjordman’s cherry-picking because while I have no doubt Weldon said what he attributes to her, Weldon has also said things like, “Men are irrelevant.” She also said, “We shelter children for a time; we live side by side with men; and that is all. We owe them nothing, and are owed nothing. I think we owe our friends more, especially our female friends.” Pity Fjordman has clearly never read her books. She could have taught him a lot.

Moreover, as anyone who has any knowledge of human sexuality will tell you, don’t confuse sexual submission with social submission. It’s a childish mistake Fjordman is making, conflating the two. And finally, Islam means “voluntary submission to Allah.” The religion’s name has nothing to do with female sexual submission. But that aside, I implore Fjordman to never again invoke the name of any author in an attempt to subvert their meaning, as he did with Owen, or without understanding their body of work, as he did with Weldon.

Then, as if invoking the name of Fay Weldon was not enough to irritate me into a near-tiger like ferocity, he utterly misses the point of Virginia Woolf. From page 348-9:

Virginia Woolf in her book A Room of One’s Own praises the genius of William Shakespeare[10]: “If ever a human being got his work expressed completely, it was Shakespeare. If ever a mind was incandescent, unimpeded, I thought, turning again to the bookcase, it was Shakespeare’s mind.” “Let me imagine, since facts are so hard to come by, what would have happened had Shakespeare had a wonderfully gifted sister, called Judith, let us say.” “His extraordinarily gifted sister, let us suppose, remained at home. She was as adventurous, as imaginative, as agog to see the world as he was. But she was not sent to school. She had no chance of learning grammar and logic, let alone of reading Horace and Virgil.” She “killed herself one winter’s night and lies buried at some cross–roads where the omnibuses now stop outside the Elephant and Castle.”

Feminists claim that the reason why women haven’t been as numerous in politics and science as men is due to male oppression of women. Some of this is true. But it is not the whole story. Being male means having to prove something, to achieve something, in a greater way than it does for women. In addition to this, the responsibility for child rearing will always fall more heavily on women than on men. A modern society may lessen these restraints, but it will never remove them completely. For these practical reasons, it is unlikely that women will ever be as numerous as men in politics or in the highest level in business.

On this one, I am going to give Fjordman some leeway because he is not being wholly repellent. But the tragedy of Shakepeare’s sister is not that she simply had children to raise or dithered about, trying to be some Superwoman. Rather, the point Woolf is making is that women are indeed the equals of men but have for centuries faced an impenetrable stonewall preventing access. Much happened to Judith before she killed herself as she tried so hard to have the benefits of a life men took as their right from birth. Women want the right to achieve something, to prove themselves and indeed it was male oppression of women that prevented that from happening for Judith. Whether or not it is unlikely that women will ever be as numerous as men in business and politics, it still remains a sad fact that unless one has access to the things that many men have had – education, quiet to think, money to support one’s self independent of marriage or inheritance – women won’t even have a chance to try. (And interestingly, if Fjordman wants another viewpoint, Fay Weldon’s protagonist says in her novel Chalcot Crescent that women don’t need a room of one’s own to write – she needs the pressure of the bills coming through the mailbox. So her narrator writes successful novels, pen on paper, perched on the staircase as her family rushes about her. In the middle of chaos, she creates and makes more money than the men who sponge off her and condemn her for not creating art that achieves the lofty standards men have set. The subtext is, of course, that even if a woman accomplishes great feats while still maintaining the status quo, while following the rules, men will still find a way to rebuke her.)

Just some miscellaneous things I want to mention

Next are some passages that are freaky in retrospect, like this statement that sort of smacks the reader in the face now that we know more about the attacks and ABB’s frame of mind. From page 517:

Muhammad Atta was named by the FBI as the pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was also a student in Germany, where he was described as quiet, polite and inconspicuous. This strategy of using religious deception, smiling to the infidels while plotting to kill them, has become a common feature of many would-be Jihadists in the West.

If this doesn’t describe ABB perfectly… Polite, inconspicuous, smiling at the people he planned to kill.

Also a relatively innocuous passage that I think needs to be discussed because it influenced ABB. From page 361:

I sometimes wonder whether the modern West, and Western Europe in particular, should be dubbed the Fatherless Civilisation. Fathers have been turned into a caricature and there is a striking demonisation of traditional male values. Any person attempting to enforce rules and authority, a traditional male preserve, is seen as a Fascist and ridiculed, starting with God the Father. We end up with a society of vague fathers who can be replaced at the whim of the mothers at any given moment. Even the mothers have largely abdicated, leaving the upbringing of children to schools, kindergartens and television. In fashion and lifestyle, mothers imitate their daughters, not vice versa.

ABB’s daddy issues permeate his part of his manifesto. And again, Fjordman was just postulating and could have had no idea how directly his words would relate to ABB’s mind. But Fjordman’s negative opinions about women (who file for divorces) and his desire to hark back to Diana West’s starched white petticoat of a past had to have resonated deeply with ABB. It almost makes me wonder if Fjordman’s misogyny and a desire to go back 60 years in the past played a role in ABB  declaring him one of the most important writers in the blogosphere. While anti-Islamic thought played a large role in ABB’s rampage, misogyny also played a large role. More on that when I post about Anders Behring Breivik next week.

At this point, all I am doing is sharing with people who don’t have the time (and some may say masochism) to slog through 1500+ pages of murderous manifesto the ideas that can only be pulled out if one reads every word. In a strange way, I think reading this humanized Fjordman because he is really no different than anyone else who believes a conspiracy theory. He’s no different than many white Nice Guys who are so blinded by hate and sadness that he cannot make sense sometimes. He’s full of the same beliefs and prejudices that are common to the American Tea Party. And while he talked a big game online, he didn’t mean for any of this to happen. Is this a referendum on the use of overblown, violent rhetoric? Is it an attempt to pull virulent ideas out into the disinfecting sunlight? I don’t really know. I just like writing about strange books, strange people, strange ideas. The only end result I see from all of this writing is that Fjordman is so very, very common and so very, very human.

Denne bokanmeldelsen er en av flere deler og blei først publisert på forfatterens blogg, ireadoddbooks.com. Teksten er gjengitt her med forfatterens samtykke, og må ikke benyttes av andre uten etter avtale.

2083 by Andrew Berwick, aka Anders Behring Breivik – part 1

«Bokanmeldelsen» er skrevet av Anita Dalton, bloggeren bak «I Read Odd Books». Hun er BA i engelsk litteratur og beskriver seg sjøl som «først og fremst kjent fordi hun liker å lese det få andre vil bla i».

Book: 2083: A European Declaration of Independence

Author: Andrew Berwick, real name Anders Behring Breivik

Type of Book: Paranoid manifesto, conspiracy theory

Why Do I Consider This Book Odd: Sigh…

Availability: It’s all over the Internet.

Comments: When I learned that the Norway mass murderer had salted his manifesto all over the Internet shortly before he went on his rampage, I knew I was going to have to read it. After all, I read odd books. And more to the point, I have an unapologetic interest in the aberrant mind. From all the commentary I read online and from news reports, Anders Behring Breivik was a fundamentalist Christian, he was a fascist, he was a racist, he was an Aryan supremacist, he hated Muslims, he was a loner, he was a part of a larger anti-Islam group, he was a lunatic, he was a mastermind – he was all kinds of inconsistent things and I wondered what was correct and what was the typical media rush to judgment. I wondered if the people who were postulating about him and his sources had actually read the manifesto.

So I read it. Every last word. I will admit that at about page 1200 things at times got a little vague for me. Reading every word of this disjointed, strange monster of a manuscript would make even an Adderall addict bleary. I also admit that after a while, all the articles explaining the horrors of Islam and all the terrible things Muslims have done wore a bit thin. I have a feeling that were I forced to read some of them again, it would be like I was reading them for the first time. That’s okay because all that “evidence” was not likely to be of much interest to me anyway. It’s largely unimportant because I examined this manifesto from the perspective of a person interested in strange minds and conspiracy theory. On both fronts, this manifesto was quite interesting.

Strangely, Anders Behring Breivik (to be called ABB from here on out) is not the most interesting part of this manifesto. Rather, it was the cast of characters who led him to the conclusions he reached and provided confirmation for his strange ideas. Most notable is Fjordman. So notable is Fjordman that I intend to devote two entries to discussing him. Initially, I declared Fjordman to be a complete asshole, and parts of that assessment still seem true, but as I reread and wrote my discussion, I began to find him pitiable. Not pitiful, but definitely pitiable.

Fjordman, who revealed his identity recently as Peder Jensen, a 36-year-old man who seems largely unremarkable, greatly inspired ABB’s thoughts and the terrible rampage that killed 77 people. Because Fjordman influenced many of ABB’s ideas, it seems logical to me to discuss him first. You see, though much of this manifesto consists of articles from other writers, the bulk of the articles came from Fjordman. If you have not read or browsed the manifesto, many articles from anti-Islamists are reproduced in full in the manifesto. Part two of this three-part manifesto was almost a static wiki of articles from other people. Though my eyes admittedly glazed over at times, I believe I counted 40 articles from Fjordman reproduced throughout the 1500 pages. Though there are articles from other writers (one of them a hilarious pearl-clutching treatise on the horrors of rap music), Fjordman’s words take up the most space and show a very clear path of how his words affected ABB. Though there are theories about a Brit in Malta who may have influenced ABB’s rampage, the fact is Fjordman’s paranoiac and violent rhetoric influenced ABB’s mindset and his plans more than any other writer or thinker. In fact, the subtitle of this manifesto comes from the title of one of Fjordman’s articles, and the date of 2083 seems very much influenced by estimates that Fjordman posits about the decline of Europe if Muslim immigration is not stopped soon. So logically, for me at any rate, to understand ABB, we first must talk about Fjordman’s articles and the part they played in ABB’s anti-Muslim fears.

Before you read part one of my discussion about Fjordman, there are some things I would like to share with you, gentle reader. Unpleasant things. Of course, I will never not be a little shocked when I discover a whole mess of people willing to accept conspiracy theory as irrevocable fact. I may devote my life to reading books about conspiracy theory, but it is unsettling when it hits home how deeply people can believe in it. It was shocking to realize that there are people who take the word of Bat Ye’or, the woman responsible for creating what I like to call The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca, as historical truth. It was horrifying to realize that people like Diana West (ahahahaha!), Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer are not laughed out of every quarter of contemporary political thought. It was disgusting to realize that there are no depths too low for the likes of Glenn Beck, Pamela Geller and Debbie Schlussel to sink as they try desperately to keep their names and ideas relevant in the minds of those who live and breathe race hate and bigotry.

But as unpleasant as all of this is, it is important that we understand how common conspiracy theory is in some form or other for a good many people in this world. For many the natural impulse is to dismiss ABB as a crazy man, and we dismiss him as a lunatic at our own risk because if he is a lunatic, so are many, many others. It is hardwired into the human brain to believe strange things, I think, and it’s hard to look at a man like ABB and realize that he is just one of many, a man who is different solely because he took things just one step further. That is why I ultimately feel pity for Fjordman. Fjordman, a True Believer in Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia conspiracy theory was building castles in the air via his online essays, never once thinking that his words, taken at face value, could have been seen as a call to arms.

We have a vested interest in dismissing all violence as crazy, labeling people like ABB as The Other, but his views are derived from other people and are influencing other people even after anyone with common decency would dismiss him. Killing innocent teenagers for a bizarre political and social agenda should have rendered ABB’s ideas untouchable for anyone with sense and a conscience – Fjordman is appalled by what happened on Utøya – but there is a fringe element who see what ABB did as being the work of a patriot. Think I’m exaggerating? I don’t recommend visiting Pamela Geller or Debbie Schlussel’s sites because if you do, you are rewarding their dreadful antics to draw attention to themselves. Rather, check out the analysis of some of these people on sites like Loon Watch, Spencer Watch, and, interestingly enough, Little Green Footballs. (It had been years since I had visited Little Green Footballs. Last time I visited the site, it was a hive of scum and villainy. Discovering the site is no longer devoted to race hate and biogtry was perhaps the sole pleasant element to come from reading 2083.)

Before I begin my discussion of 2083, I need to make it clear, very clear, that I am not discussing any specifics of the immigration situations in other countries or the specifics of Muslim immigration in Europe. I am not qualified to discuss it and I have no interest running to ground all of the statistics, determining what information is sound and what information is not. But even though the sites I have read that discussed some elements of 2083 focus solely on the question of Islamic immigration, there is so much more than that to be found in 2083. So much, in fact, that what began as just another of my long-winded looks at strange writings turned into what I think will be a four part series: two entries about Fjordman and two entries about ABB.

But being who I am, only part of the manifesto interested me. If you want a hard political look at Muslim immigration and the social implications of it, there are plenty of political sites on both sides of the issue to accommodate you. My examination of Fjordman will look at his beliefs and an analysis of his writing. My examination of ABB will be to look at his plans and his theories, and some postulation about his brain because I cannot resist the urge to armchair psychoanalyze him. And it should be mentioned that I am not going to stray from the text. Everything I discuss about either man comes directly from 2083, and to make it clear, every word from Fjordman comes from articles that ABB found so important that he reproduced them in full in 2083. I also will end up snarking some because, given the text we are discussing, how can I not? Some ideas, even those that lead to tragedy, have an arrogant comedy in them that cannot be ignored by a woman who has a black belt in sarcasm.

So begins Part One:

Fjordman

2083, though categorized into three sections, is a mess in terms of coherence. So discussing the book chronologically is impossible for me. Instead, I am going to write in categories, first about the elements of the book that are most important in understanding the Eurabia conspiracy theory, Fjordman’s distaste for Muslims, and understanding how Fjordman’s words, however unintentionally on his part, could have inspired violence.

It’s also important to note two things before I begin. Fjordman and ABB are not native English speakers, so I will not be noting any usage errors in their writing. To include the traditional [sic] would have been time-consuming and more than a little pedantic had I been consistent. Second, if there are any errors in the way book names are presented or any other formatting differences between the original text and my quotes, assume those errors are mine. I copied from a PDF into Word then into WordPress and I can imagine some things got lost in the transfers.

So let’s begin and have a look at Fjordman, the man who influenced a mass murderer.

The Eurabia Conspiracy Theory
I want to start with the whole Eurabia theory because if we really want to assign blame for what happened in Norway, the blame begins and ends with ABB. Full stop. Non-negotiable. But at the same time, it is not hard to see how it is that conspiracy theory can lead a mind utterly astray. If Fjordman is the man who influenced ABB, then Bat Ye’or is the woman who influenced all of those who believe that there is a master plan to sell out Europe wholesale to the Muslims.

Fjordman is a true believer in Bat Ye’or’s theory of Eurabia, wherein Marxism, political correctness, cultural relativism (routinely called multiculturalism), traitor governments and the EU have collided and colluded to permit an Islamic invasion that will wipe out Western civilization. Here’s a small sample of what Bat Ye’or believes and has written about, as described by Fjordman on page 281:

In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye’or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960′s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.

“This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy,” said Bat Ye’or. “We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicised and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe.”

To sum up, France tried to ally themselves with the Muslims as a counter-balance to the Soviets and now, as a result, all European leaders have an alliance with the Muslim world that affects policies toward the USA and Israel and will result in the West becoming Islamic satellite nations.

From page 283, we get the following two quotes:

A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project’s prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organisation functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.

European leaders went behind their citizens’ backs in order to sell their countries out to the Muslims.

On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to “The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture.” It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU’s “government,” and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilisations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.

There is a movement to control information about Islam, including what is taught in schools, all under the auspices of European leaders working behind the scenes to give their countries over to Islam.

More from page 284:

Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia’s constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.

This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian “correctness” imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.

Okay, this is important because the reason those kids were targeted on that island is because they were attending a Labor Party summer camp. ABB makes this clear in the beginning of the manifesto, but key to the Eurabia conspiracy is the idea that cultural Marxists, the people responsible for political correctness, are the ones permitting Muslim immigration into Norway. By taking out future Socialists whom he thought would continue to harm his country, ABB was trying to stem the tide of immigration that Bat Ye’or insists comes from this conspiracy of European leaders.

And it goes on and on. To save the reader from having to read more long quotes on this matter, here is the summary: Europe’s leaders have sold out Europeans to the Muslims, who are evil and seek to destroy a Western identity. All non-Muslims will be forced into a state of “dhimmitude,” a neologism coined by Ye’or to express the perpetual second-class citizenship and a state of near-slavery that she believes Muslims will inflict on non-Muslims. Fjordman believes Bat Ye’or’s conspiracy theory and therefore so does ABB.

What I later found so interesting about Fjordman’s belief in this conspiracy theory is that there are glimpses of a reasonable mind (and note I did not say rational – conspiracy theorists are some of the most rational people on the planet but they are seldom reasonable). There are moments when, as I read, I could see the wheels turning in his mind and if he had just let them turn a bit more, he might have come out on the other side of the machine. But alas, he got stuck. For instance, Fjordman is strangely aware of how dumb his particular brand of conspiracy sounds but is unaware that he is just like every other True Believer out there in how he rationalizes his ideas. From page 280:

I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country’s standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or “stab in the back myth” – the idea that Germany didn’t lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jews – helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.

So he’s aware of conspiracy theories. He understands that they exist and that others look at the Eurabia conspiracy and dismiss it along with other conspiracies. But like all True Believers, his conspiracy is different, somehow, than all the other conspiracy theories. As much as I loathe his ideology and as much as I mock and deride his beliefs, I also know that there is a critical mind in there somewhere that has been corrupted by hate because there is no way anyone could know the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a load of pants but not be able to see how Eurabia is the same unless one is deliberately shutting down the part of one’s mind that permits reasonable comparisons.

We continue seeing how strangely his mind works on page 280:

However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.

In contrast, Eurabia – which asserts that the Islamisation of Europe didn’t happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leaders – is hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn’t fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.

Fjordman doesn’t seem to understand that only a small number of people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and that when it comes up, it is being brought up and discussed by the self-same people who believe in it. Aside from Charlie Sheen and the whole “Loose Change” crowd, people feel no need to deflect blame for the terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center from the Muslim terrorists responsible for it. Therefore it is not that unusual that Eurabia seldom comes up either. The reason no one reputable mentions Eurabia as truth is because it is, as I said already, The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca. Even though there are some news outlets willing to let Glenn Beck shit up the place and therefore may have an open-door lunatic policy, most of them are not, in fact, run by anti-Western freedom haters who want to see the entire world taken over by political correctness so that the Muslims can enslave us all. Rather, people don’t discuss it outside of Jihad Watch and The Gates of Brussels because most people are not bigoted paranoiacs. Even better, they aren’t saying it because Islam is not trying to take over the world. The reason it is “hardly ever referred to at all” is because it does not exist

Fjordman has really swallowed Bat Ye’or’s conspiracy theory hook, line, and sinker, to the point that he simply cannot see that this belief set is really a different side of the same coin used as currency in race hate and bigotry directed at Jews. From page 296:

According to Bat Ye’or, fear of awakening opposition to EU policy toward the Arab Mediterranean countries led to the repression of all discussion of the economic problems and difficulties of integration caused by massive immigration. Any criticism of Muslim immigration is basically brushed off as being “just like the Jews were talked about in Nazi Germany,” a ridiculous but effective statement.

It’s not ridiculous. It’s the same goddamned hate that has plagued mankind since we evolved into differing tribes. The arguments are the same – the Muslims want their own law system derived from their beliefs, they won’t assimilate, they commit crimes against native Europeans, etc. Just replace the world Muslim with Jew and we can reenact those same accusations of 70 years ago.

Bat Ye’or’s acolytes are no different than anyone else who bases their life around bizarre conspiracy. From page 296 we see the victim mentality that all these True Believers seem to possess:

Professional harassment, boycott and defamation punish those who dare to openly challenge the Politically Correct discourse. According to Bat Ye’or, this has led to the development of a type of “resistance press” as if Europe were under the “occupation” of its own elected governments.

What harm has befallen Bat Ye’or, or the people at Gates of Brussels, or Robert Spencer, or anyone else for speaking this nonsense other than earning the censure of their peers? If you say stupid things that have no basis in reality, people mock you. That’s life, not persecution for your beliefs. Moreover, I find it amusing that these folk consider themselves as equivalent to “resistance press.” They are tilting at windmills and are trying to give their bigoted conspiracy a patina of respectability, harking back to the real resistances that fought against actual occupying armies, like the French during WWII. This is not a resistance press that requires pseudonyms for personal safety – it’s a bunch of miserable people publishing bigotry as history, many of whom don’t want to eat the shit sandwich that being bigots would earn them. Bat Ye’or is no Lucie Aubrac. It is offensive that anyone would even try to associate this mess of hate with movements that genuinely did fight against occupying armies. But they must adopt this guise of being the voice for freedom, persecuted for their beliefs, lest they have to face the fact that their base beliefs are rejected because they are stupid and because they are wrong.

It’s all very sad, in a way, how such beliefs, so strange on their face, would influence anyone to believe. But they do believe. And a man killed 77 people because of the perpetuation of conspiracy theory as fact. Never forget this. ABB believed this conspiracy theory, but so do many others. The basis of the belief behind his rampage is shared by many other people.

Fjordman is a religious bigot
The force behind the Eurabia conspiracy theory is hate – bigotry aimed at a religion. Saying this in no way lessens the impact of any Muslim atrocity that may have happened. Religion is, in my atheist opinion, a shield behind which many terrible people have done terrible things. Bat Ye’or suffered a shattering upheaval because of political machinations in Egypt and calling her and those who believe her conspiracy bigots should not reduce the perception of the impact bad politics had on her life. But regardless of how she came to have the ideas she does, the basis of this conspiracy theory is hate and Fjordman definitely has the hate.

Hate makes it impossible to see any blood except that which is on your enemy’s hands. Fjordman has some odd ideas about the sanctity of other religions in comparison to Islam. From page 58:

Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Koran for fighting against people of other faiths. “If it is correct that many Muslims view the Koran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence. Consequently, it must be reasonable to ask Muslims themselves how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is,” says Magaard.

Fjordman cops to the fact that he is not a Christian, though he thinks Christian Identity could play some role in ending Muslim immigration, so perhaps he has no idea the hilarity that ensues when one engages in comparative religious examinations of the horrors religions espouse. But suffice it to say that for every line from the Koran one uses to damn the Muslims, I can find find an equally appalling line from the Bible and/or Torah to damn the Christians and/or Jews. Let us ask all the Christians and Jews how they relate to the text, if they read it as it is. That should be fun and illuminating.

More of the same, plus some bizarre rhetoric from page 337:

Muslims are stuck with their problems and their corrupt leaders and blame everybody else for their own failures because they can never admit they are caused by deep flaws in their culture. We shouldn’t make the same mistake. Europeans export wine; Arabs export whine. That’s the way it should be.

This comes from a section wherein Fjordman is postulating that the Europeans have been too weak and have the weak government they deserve. The part I am focusing on here is the statement that Muslims never admit they cause problems and that throwaway line about wine and whine. Ugh. This is ridiculous stereo-typing (based on what – I had no idea that Muslim are considered whiny – none that I know are whiny…) and really helps the case that Fjordman is just a bigoted, strange little man willing to say outrageous things because he hates. And if all Arabs exported was whine then why all the fear? What does it say about Fjordman that he has such hate for a group that is evidently so weak he uses words like “whine” to describe them? Of course, that was a rhetorical throwaway line, but still, it is quite grating.

Then Fjordman goes on to quote a commenter from some anti-Islam sites:

Thus, from a purely economic point of view, Islam seems to be a collective of people who live by the ethos of “beg, borrow or steal.” So why do we, the capitalist countries, who do not believe in offering anyone a free lunch, subsidise the most lazy yet aggressive bunch of people on God’s planet, who are bent on subverting our democratic system? The nub is, how has it come about, that the natural progression of the most advanced civilisation on earth is towards stupidity?

Yep, from the entirety of all the Muslims on this Earth we can safely say that every single one of them is a beggar, a moocher or a thief. This is very sound reasoning and no one should ever question when anyone makes huge, sweeping, bigoted statements like this.

But Fjordman and those he quotes don’t let anything like facts get in their way of Islamic demonization. From page 414:

Former Muslim Ali Sina[51] claims that even in the USA, which has a smaller Muslim population and less social security benefits than Western Europe, Muslims are a huge drain on the economy: “Because about 2 million Muslims live in America and among them there are some who are terrorists, Americans are forced to expend hundreds of billions of dollars on homeland security. I have no idea how much is the actual cost. Let us be conservative and say it costs only $200 billion dollars per year. In reality it could be many times more. Does anyone have any idea? With just $200 billion dollars, every Muslim, including their children cost the taxpayers $100,000 dollars per year. This is the real “contribution” of Muslims to America Mr. President. Once you add the cost of the real damage caused in terrorist attacks, such as to planes, buildings, etc. this cost will be much higher.

Just for the record, power needs no excuse to crawl up people’s asses. Seriously, if the TSA had not been the agency that more or less destroyed the Bill of Rights, some other government agency would have. I know, I know, I am totally sounding like Alex Jones. We all have our weaknesses. But back to this quote. It is a quote that assumes there are Muslim terrorists living in America and that is why the Department of Homeland Security is doing all that it does. It assumes the number of terrorists in the USA is the sum total of Muslims in the USA, because it breaks down the amount spent by the DHS per Muslim. And then the number spent by the DHS is also speculative. Fact, schmacts! Let’s yell about terror and money and stuff because who cares about real numbers and accurate statistics?

From page 523:

As I have demonstrated above, it is perfectly accepted, and widely practiced, by Jihadist Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their true agenda. I have also demonstrated that the relationship between radicals and so-called moderates is a lot closer than we would like to think. At best, they share the goals of establishing sharia around the world, and differ only over the means to achieve this goal. At worst, they are allies in a good cop, bad cop game to extort concession after concession from the infidels. Moreover, even those who genuinely are moderate and secular in their approach may later change, or their children may change. This can be triggered by almost anything, either something in the news or a crisis in their personal lives, which will create a desire to become a better, more pious Muslim. The few remaining moderates can easily be silenced by violence from their more ruthless, radical counterparts.

So, even the moderate Muslims are scary because they are some sort of religious Manchurian Candidate wherein they can be triggered into extremism and violence. We have to fear them even if they are not fearsome because they may become fearsome. I don’t know how anyone could look at this and not see that this is nothing but religious bigotry.

Fjordman sees the Muslims as relentless baby-making machines, echoing language that I have read condemning Italian and Irish immigrants in the United States 100 years ago, and Hispanics today. From page 286:

The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.

I am unsure how Fjordman comes by these statistics and lack the will to find out. As far as I know, France does not collect birth information using religion statistics. However, given that Muslims make up 9% of the French population, it is hard to see how the Muslim women included in that 9% can possibly have so many children each year that they make up 33% of the total births in any given year. Oh yes, of course, the French must be deliberately misrepresenting the number of Muslims because they are a part of the Eurabia conspiracy. Or the Muslims have babies in litters like cats. Either way, this is irrational bigotry.

Fjordman also has a hard time explaining why some religions pass inspection with him and why some don’t. From page 295:

What the European Union does, however, is to treat Islam as a traditional, European religion on par with Christianity and Judaism. This is a crucial component of Eurabian thinking and practice.

At what point does a religion’s presence obtain a traditional status. Though Muslims were expelled from Spain, there was a significant Muslim presence left behind. How long does it take to become a tradition? Christians invaded Scandinavia, replacing pagan and heathen ideals with Christian ideals in some quarters and Scandinavia has only been “Christian” for 800-1200 years. If Christianity is considered a traditional religion for all of Europe, then why not Islam? Well, because Bat Ye’or’s conspiracy theory has led Fjordman to conclude that Muslims are evil. (And while I am aware of some of Fjordman’s story that he told when he revealed his real name, I am doing my best to stick to the manifesto. However, I will say that while Fjordman has lived in Egypt and studied there, and was appalled by some Muslim reaction to the 9/11 attacks, such ideas are worthless in determining a unified outlook in the world. Taking the specific and making it the general for all people within an entire faith is a bad way of forming ideas.)

I’ll end this section on Fjordman’s religious bigotry with this quote from page 335:

There is, however, a big difference: The Islamic world always has been our enemy and always will be. China and Russia do not have to be our enemies, although our relations will be complicated because of their size and their own Great Power ambitions. We can, at best, persuade them that directly opposing us isn’t going to pay off.

So, we can reason with the Chinese and the Russians so they will not stand in the West’s way as they contain the Muslim Menace, but we can’t reason with the Muslims. Interesting… But even more interesting is the notion that the Islamic world was, is and always will be our enemy. See, this is why this is nothing but hate. This mindset is no different than those who insist that the beliefs of the Jews mean they will always be the enemy of civilization. But when you are in the depths of such beliefs you can’t see how they are the same hatred perpetuating itself over and over and over.

I don’t even have the time or desire to discuss all the various Muslim fears that Fjordman has, but he thinks the Muslim Brotherhood has a multi-point plan to take over Europe. Investments in Europe evidently mean they are setting the stage to have a strong financial foothold once they kill off or enslave whitey. At any rate, this is perilously close to New World Order bullshit because at this point, international trade and foreign investments are a part of the world economy. Get over it. There were many times I wanted to tell Fjordman to pull up his socks and get over it – the world has changed, and as much as he demeans the tribalism of Islamic adherents, he sure cloaks himself in his own tribal identity. But seeing conflicts in thinking are not the strong point of any conspiracy theorist. I will touch more on some of Fjordman’s inconsistencies in the second part of my look at his words.

Fjordman’s bleak, urgent and violent rhetoric is alarming
I have to state pretty clearly that Fjordman was pulled into this against his will. Evidently he never exchanged ideas directly with ABB and declined to meet him. In a way he didn’t ask for this. But in a way, he did. Information placed on the Internet reaches all kinds of readers and in writing in such a vehement, angry manner, using terminology for war, battle, and siege, as well as stating the urgency of the dire situation in Europe, it is not unreasonable to look at his words, note their inclusion in the manifesto, and understand the role his rhetoric played in ABB’s rampage. I don’t agree with some bloggers that Fjordman bears a criminal culpability, and he may not even bear a moral culpability. But there is no way to look objectively at his words and not come to the conclusion that they could have been read by a fellow True Believer as a call to arms.

I have seen some pundits say that if Fjordman is to bear any responsibility then the Beatles must be held responsible for the actions of the Manson family or that Salinger must be responsible for the murder of John Lennon since Mark David Chapman was carrying a copy of The Catcher in the Rye when he shot him. That is all nonsense. Paul McCartney did indeed write a song about the fall of a civilization but at no point did he say that there was to be a race war and that someone needed to start it off by killing a pregnant starlet. And god only knows what Chapman extrapolated from a book about a kid who hated phonies but at no point did Salinger indicate that perhaps the way to rid the world of phonies was to shoot a politically active rock star. However, Fjordman does, in fact, indicate that there needs to be some drastic action to stop Muslim immigration, which he sees as a part of a larger scheme to create a Eurabia wherein white Europeans are enslaved by Muslims, and he uses violent language as he shares his ideas. More importantly, he made a very convincing case that there is no hope for change via the political process or even peaceful demonstrations, which would lead some True Believers to think that the only method by which change could be achieved is the individual acting against the state.

At some point, the blogging world is going to have to understand that our words mean something, that they have overt meaning plus subtext, and that when information is so easily disseminated, words laden with subtext may reach an audience that may not know you were writing hypothetically. I can understand why Fjordman went into hiding. The horror of this situation alone has to be killing him.

But none of that changes the fact that the proof for his exhortations for urgent action, possibly violent, are clear as day in his words. Though he did not state outright that one should kill members of the Labor Party in Norway (cultural Marxists) in order to stem the tide of Islamification, he engages in fear-mongering, uses violent language that gives lie to the idea that he did not tacitly encourage violence, and proves his case that things are beyond hope. Did he mean to set off ABB? Of course not. This is less an insinuation about Fjordman’s role inspiring the Norway murders than it is an attempt to show those who still have not made up their mind about the text that there is a strong sense of urgency and a call to violence that cannot be denied simply with good intentions.

I want to begin with some quotes, offered with no commentary. In this entire section, for all quotes that have words in bold, the emphasis is mine. We start on page 322:

I know many Americans, and Europeans, too, have more or less written off Western Europe as lost to Islam already. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t think this too sometimes, but I do see encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, I still believe, or at least hope, that Europe can be saved.

But this hope hinges on the complete and utter destruction of the European Union. The EU must die, or Europe will die. It’s that simple.

From page 331:

It is conceivable that Islam in some generations will cease to be a global force of any significance, but in the meantime it will be a constant source of danger to its neighbours, from Europe through India to Southeast Asia. The good news is that Islam may not be able to achieve the world dominance it desires. The bad news is that it may be able to achieve a world war. We can only cage it as much as possible and try to prevent this from happening.

More dire language from page 378:

I’ve suggested before that native Europeans face three enemies simultaneously when fighting against the Islamisation of their lands: Enemy 1 is the anti-Western bias of our media and academia, which is a common theme throughout the Western world. Enemy 2 are Eurabians and EU-federalists, who deliberately break down established nation states in favor of a pan-European superstate. Enemy 3 are Muslims. The Netherlands from 2001 to 2007 is a clear case in point where enemies 1, 2 and 3 have successfully cooperated on breaking down the spirit of the native population through intimidation and censorship and by squashing any opposition to continued mass immigration.

From page 613:

Scandinavia is a Utopia lost. Previously quiet Scandinavian nations now suffer Islamic terror threats and death threats[28] against people criticising Islam. Norway celebrates 100 years as an independent state[29] this year. Judging from this new discrimination act and the runaway Muslim immigration, perhaps the anniversary should be called “From independence to colonisation”. At the same time as their women are no longer safe in the streets because of immigrant gangs, the authorities respond by making Norwegians defacto second-rate citizens in their own country. They use their own people as stepping stones for their personal careers in the UN bureaucracy.

From page 520:

Centre Democrat Ben Haddou[27], a member of Copenhagen’s City Council, has stated: “It’s impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off sharia is a form of warfare against them.

Read that statement again, and read it carefully. Muslims in the West consider it “a form of warfare against them” if they have to live by our secular laws, not their religious laws. Will they then also react in violent ways to this “warfare” if they don’t get their will? Moreover, since sharia laws ultimately require the subjugation of non-Muslims, doesn’t “freedom of religion” for Muslims essentially entail the freedom to make non-Muslims second-rate citizens in their own countries?

It goes on and on and on. From page 342:

This war by Islam against Europe, the West and indeed mankind has been going on for more than 1300 years. This is the third major Jihad, the third Islamic attempt to subdue the heartland of the West. Although I cannot prove this, I have a very strong feeling that this will also be the last attempt. There will be no fourth Jihad. Either Muslims will win this time, or Islam itself will be handed a defeat and a blow so powerful that it may never recover from it. This is perhaps the longest, continuous war in human history. And it’s about to be decided within the coming decades. I’m not sure how all of this will play out. What I do know is that it could all be decided on my watch, and I don’t want to be the weak link in something my ancestors kept intact for 1300 years.

Fjordman is making his case about the Eurabia theory – Islam is coming to get Europe. In this one passage he spells out that the time to fight is at hand, giving urgency to the situation. He calls it a war, one of the longest in human history. He says that if Islam is not crushed this time there will be no second chance. He says he does not want to be part of the reason the West succumbs to Islam. There is no way for anyone but a Fjordman apologist not to see the implications in his ideas and his loaded word choice.

Just some more examples of the descriptive language Fjordman uses as he discusses his conspiracy theory. From page 603:

Since its inception, Islam has been waging an aggressive war against the rest of mankind, with the stated purpose of bringing every single human being on earth under Islamic rule. Infidels have been presented with only three options: Convert to Islam, die, or submit under Islamic rule as a dhimmi, a second-rate citizen in your own country subject to serious financial pressure, constant verbal humiliations and frequent physical abuse. Islam hasn’t changed in the last 1400 years.

This entire quote is incendiary in the mind of anyone who believes in Eurabia conspiracy, and ABB was definitely a True Believer.

How about this from page 636:

According to Politikerbloggen[9], AFA have produced a manual about how to use violence in order to paralyze and hurt their opponents, and they encourage their members to study it closely. Meanwhile, senior members of law enforcement are too busy waving plastic penises to care. It’s all for tolerance, and then there is this small group at the back, behind the police, the media and the cultural and political establishment, ready to assault, beat up and hospitalise anybody deemed to be insufficiently tolerant.

The people who want tolerance will beat people to a pulp to get it. With incendiary words like this one wonders if ABB decided to fight Fjordman’s fire with fire.

The urgency that Fjordman brings to making the case for Eurabia is also strong and persuasive to a True Believer. From page 677:

Several recent incidents have demonstrated that Muslims are now trying to apply these dhimmi rules to the entire Western world. The most important one was the burning of churches and embassies triggered by the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. This was, down to the last comma, exactly the way Muslims would treat the persecuted non-Muslims in their own countries. The cartoon Jihad indicated that Muslims now felt strong enough to apply sharia rules to Denmark, and by extension NATO. Hardly anybody in the mainstream Western media made any attempts to explain this to the public.

We are hurtling toward slave status now, this very minute. The Denmark cartoon incident proves it, in Fjordman’s eyes.

More about the cartoon situation in Denmark. From page 593:

The status given to non-Muslims who accept being second-rate citizens, dhimmis, under Islamic rule is technically referred to as “protected.” During the Cartoon Jihad, the leftwing coalition government demonstrated in public that Norwegian authorities did not control the security of their citizens, and thus had to accept Muslim intervention to secure their safety. This amounted to the acceptance of Islamic rule according to sharia law, a view which was subsequently strengthened by payments to Muslims at home and abroad. Undoubtedly these payments offered by Mr. Giske on behalf of the government were viewed by Muslims as jizya, the “protection money” non-Muslims are required to pay in willing submission (Koran, 9:29) as a sign of their inferior status vis-a-vis Islam, as a compensation for not being slain.

When the government in Norway failed to protect its citizens from Islamic backlash, they effectively sold out Norwegians into a state of protected, Islamic slavery and tacitly accepted Sharia law. This is clearly making the case that urgent action is needed, right here and right now, because the government has already made Norwegian citizens Islamic slaves. Christ, as I reread this, I sort of think that Fjordman should kiss the ground that this did not turn out worse than it did.

Here’s some more urgency from page 600:

My bet is still on Britain, or possibly Denmark, as the first Western country to face a civil war due to Muslim immigration, but the Netherlands is a potential candidate as well.

Muslim immigration will cause civil war in Europe. A True Believer and a patriot would want to avoid civil war, using any means to prevent it.

And for the love of sanity, bear in mind that I am only culling a small percentage of the alarmist quotes from Fjordman available to me. From page 586:

Sweden was presented during the Cold War as a middle way between capitalism and Communism. When this model of a society collapses — and it will collapse, under the combined forces of Islamic Jihad, the European Union, multiculturalism and ideological overstretch — it is thus not just the Swedish state that will collapse but the symbol of Sweden, the showcase of an entire ideological world view. I wrote two years ago[3] that if the trend isn’t stopped, the Swedish nation will simply cease to exist in any meaningful way during the first half of this century. The country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe, and the “Swedish model” will be one of warning against ideological madness, not one of admiration. I still fear I was right in that assessment.

Ignore the trivialization of centuries of Swedish society summed up in “Bergman, Abba and Volvo.” Were those things not to have existed, I am sure the world and Sweden would have been just fine. Just pay attention to the panic implicit in the idea that Sweden is near collapse and may cease to exist unless something is done.

Some more panicky information for the True Believer, from page 521:

It is true that Jihad is not exclusively about violence, but it is very much about the constant threat of violence. Just like you don’t need to beat a donkey all the time to make it go where you want it to, Muslims don’t have to hit non-Muslims continuously. They bomb or kill every now and then, to make sure that the infidels are always properly submissive and know who’s boss.

We are becoming donkeys who will continue to be trained by violence until we are overcome. Something needs to interrupt this training process before it is too late.

Here Fjordman is discussing the imminent fall of France to Muslims, on page 287:

The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too?

This is clearly setting up the idea that the world is going to be in danger of a nuclear event if something does not stop Eurabia from becoming a reality. Nuclear warheads in the hands of terrorists would make the average person jittery. Imagine how such an idea can create a sense of utter urgency in the mind of a Eurabia believer.

More of Fjordman’s charged urgency from page 326:

New anti-discrimination laws to combat Islamophobia are to be enacted, as they already have been in Norway, where Norwegians need to mount proof of their own innocence[15] if Muslim immigrants accuse them of discrimination in any form, including discriminatory speech. The EU also wants to promote an official lexicon[16] shunning offensive and culturally insensitive terms such as “Islamic terrorism.”

Ah, so now Norwegians will have to prove their innocence much like those accused of witchcraft in the 17th century, in anti-Democratic attempts to label all Norwegians Islamophobics. Again, note the urgency and overblown horror, words meant to instill fear and a need to act in the reader.

Fjordman’s sense of impending doom includes all Europeans being put to death for Islamic blasphemies:

Remember that blasphemy against Islam carries the death penalty according to sharia. Multiculturalism in Europe is about to reach its openly totalitarian phase. Those who think this is a joke can look at the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot[13] who was arrested in 2008 for cartoons that “insulted” Muslims. Several documents that are publicly available (but little known by the general public because they are never referred to by the mainstream media) state that the EU should “harmonise” the education and legal systems with the Arab “partner countries” within the coming decade. This is being negotiated as we speak, behind our backs.

So, Europeans will one day face the death penalty for criticizing Islam. Act now or we will all face the sword for criticizing Islam. According to Fjordman, the details are being decided now behind everyone’s backs. Can we all agree that this would create a sense of urgency to act now in a True Believer?

Now here’s where things get sticky and ugly for anyone who really wants to maintain that Fjordman’s intent was never to inspire anyone to commit acts of the sort ABB committed. It is true that Fjordman describes a plan to defeat cultural Marxists and stop Muslim immigration. From page 330:

The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

Okay, within the confines of his irrational, bigoted hatred for Islam, this is not that incendiary. Changing laws sounds like a pretty middle of the road option. This would still be a bit iffy given the Eurabia theory that is behind it but overall one does not want to shake Fjordman by his shoulders until he sees reason.

Well, it would be somewhat acceptable if he did not go on at length, detailing in depth the fact that changing laws is impossible, that every reasonable move the Islamophobe in Europe can make is not only doomed to failure, but could in fact, be criminalized. Fjordman unfortunately makes his case about the dire, irrevocable situation Europe is in, being at the mercy of governments in collusion with Muslims. In the face of all that he writes, it is impossible for a True Believer in Eurabia to walk away with the sense that anything legal or sensible will end the plight of the native Europeans.

Here’s an example of this, from page 599:

In March 2007, native Dutch residents of the city of Utrecht rioted to protest against harassment by Muslim youths and government inaction to stop this. The authorities immediately suppressed the riots by sealing off the area and installing surveillance cameras to control Dutch non-Muslims, but they have done virtually nothing to address the underlying problem of violence from immigrant gangs. The case is far from unique.

Such incidents demonstrate that the authorities throughout Western Europe are now dedicated to implementing continued mass immigration and multiculturalism no matter what the natives think. If they object, they will be silenced. The Dutch voted “no” by a very large margin to the proposed EU Constitution that will formally dismantle their country, as did Irish and French voters, but they are simply ignored. At the same time, the EU elites obediently respond to calls from Islamic countries to ban “stereotypes and prejudice” targeting Islam. European political elites implement the agendas of our enemies and ignore the interests of their own people. They are thus collaborators and traitors and should be treated accordingly.

So from this example we see that peaceful protests do not work and result in an Orwellian crackdown on the protesters. Any attempt to speak out will result in being silenced. The political officials reject the will and the vote of the people and are allowing the enemy to take over. The governments are full of Islamic collaborators. What good will voting or waking up the “sheeple” do if the will of the voters is ignored anyway? What is the only option left for the patriotic True Believer when even peaceful protest is taken from him?

From page 599:

In Brussels, Belgium, gangs of Muslim immigrants harass the natives on a daily basis. We have had several recent cases where native girls have been gang raped by immigrants in the heart of the EU capital, yet when the natives wanted to protest against the Islamisation of their continent on September 11th 2007, the demonstration was banned by the Socialist mayor of Brussels, whose ruling party is heavily infiltrated by Muslims. Those who attempted to carry on with a peaceful protest were arrested by the police.

So, gang rapes are common and peaceful protest against Islamization is criminalized. The options for a patriot who wants to save his countrywomen from violent rape are becoming more and more limited in Fjordman’s rhetoric.

Then we have this strange passage from page 590:

Is it just a coincidence that the one country on the European continent that has avoided war for the longest period of time, Sweden, is also arguably the one Western nation where Political Correctness has reached the worst heights? Maybe the prolonged period of peace has created an environment where layers of ideological nonsense have been allowed to pile up for generations without stop. I don’t know what Sweden will look like a generation from now, but I’m pretty sure it won’t be viewed as a model society. And if the absence of war is one of the causes of its current weakness, I fear that is a problem that will soon be cured.

Of course Fjordman means Sweden got soft and allowed the cultural Marxists to run amok because of peace, but it can be seen as a call to arms to end the peace in Scandinavia. In this sense, peace means cultural death and ABB certainly interrupted any sense of Norwegian peace. And even if that is not the case, the last line implies a vicious war with Islam looms, another heavy idea for a True Believer who thinks he is in a cultural war with Islam.

More about peace and war, from page 522:

Furthermore, the Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war. There’s also war by infiltration, as we can see in Western countries now. Is there a possibility to end this dance of war? According to Moshe Sharon, the answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future. What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.”

Fjordman makes the case that there are several ways that the Muslims are committing Jihad against the West, one of them being immigration and excessive child-bearing. So even in times of peace, the warrior must be preparing for war with Islam. Even if the Muslims in some areas are not creating the panoply of problems Fjordman talks about, they are quietly infiltrating and the canny Westerner must be ready, even in the face of “relative quiet.”

This bit from page 588 is a call to arms, pure and simple:

Why does the government dispense with the social contract and attack its own people like this? Well, for starters, because it can. Sweden is currently arguably the most politically repressive and totalitarian country in the Western world. It also has the highest tax rates. That could be a a coincidence, but I’m not sure that it is. The state has become so large and powerful that is has become an autonomous organism with a will of its own. The people are there to serve the state, not vice versa. And because state power penetrates every single corner of society, including the media, there are no places left to mount a defence if the state decides to attack you.

The governments are attacking their own people because they have no accountability anymore. The state is so large and so ominous that there is nothing anyone can do if the state decides to turn against them. The implication, of course, is that a True Believer must launch an offensive because all defensive moves are doomed to failure.

From page 587:

This is a government that knows perfectly well that their people will become a minority in their own country, yet is doing nothing to stop this. On the contrary. Pierre Schori, Minister for immigration, during a parliamentary debate in 1997 said that: “Racism and xenophobia should be banned and chased [away],” and that one should not accept “excuses, such as that there were flaws in the immigration and refugee policies.”

In other words: It should be viewed as a crime for the native population not to assist in wiping themselves out.

That is hardcore, right there, the idea that failure to cooperate will be a crime. If failing to cooperate is a crime, then it makes any other sort of action the only moral course, since we seem to be dealing in black and white. And once the case is made that there is no way to affect the government as they ignore the voters (which one presumes would make it difficult to “throw the bums out” as we used to say in America), that they turn against the native citizens at every provocation, that they have criminalized protest AND may criminalize non-compliance, there really is no course of action left for a True Believing patriot than to act against the government in a direct offensive.

There is no hope of change via the democratic process, from page 376:

In 2007, former German president Roman Herzog warned that parliamentary democracy was under threat from the European Union. Between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany – and the majority in all EU member states – stemmed from Brussels. According to Herzog, “EU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers.” Despite this, the EU was largely a non-issue during the 2005 German elections. One gets the feeling that the real issues of substance are kept off the table and are not subject to public debate. National elections are becoming an increasingly empty ritual. The important issues have already been settled beforehand behind closed doors.

If there is no way to change things via a political process, is it surprising ABB took to his guns and bombs? Fjordman is raising these issues with the intention of waking up Westerners but if there is nothing legal they can do to stop immigration, what else is there for them to do when rhetoric wakes them up? Blog about it? Amusingly, that will come up in my discussion of ABB, a section wherein he takes a small jab at those awake and still writing and not acting.

In fact, here is a little snippet of Fjordman’s own strange, backhanded criticism of blogging. I will touch on his other inconsistencies in part two. From page 377:

In the eyes of American theorist Noam Chomsky, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” This is undoubtedly true, which is why it’s strange that Chomsky thinks that the Internet, currently the freest medium of all, is “a hideous timewaster.”

And yet Fjordman kept writing about all these horrors in a hideously timewasting manner. One wonders if ABB was trying to best his teacher by not wasting time.

There is no middle road for the Eurabia conspiracy True Believer to trust even mainstream Muslims, from pages 518-519:

Examples such as these leave non-Muslims with a very powerful dilemma: How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way ofhiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can’t.

Does this mean that ALL Muslims are lying about their true agenda, all of the time? No,of course not. Some are quite frank about their intentions.

So, even the moderate Muslims are lying about their true intentions and the only ones not lying are the ones telling the West to their faces that they plan to defeat them. Doesn’t really leave a lot of wiggle room for negotiations. People may be willing to say that Fjordman and writers like him are trying to wake up Westerners but to what avail? In the process of making their case for Eurabia conspiracy theory, writers like Fjordman painted themselves into corners. Fjordman gave lip service to changing the situation via changing laws but goes into excruciating depth about how it is impossible to do that to which he gave lip service.

It’s sad, in a way. Fjordman proved the Eurabia theory so well that his acolytes had no choice, if they wanted to change things, but to act violently. Of course, Fjordman was engaging in rhetoric. All politics is rhetoric, it seems at times. People who bloviate about conspiracy theory mainly want to be believed, and belief in the theory, the comaraderie of being among people whom you think are not deluded and see the world as you see it is one of the heady reasons conspiracy theory will never go away. It is comforting to have others who believe as you do, and there is a lovely sense of arrogance wherein all those people know they are right and the others are wrong. This arrogance fuels endless debates, it fuels political action, and when those arrogant folk throw around violent, urgent rhetoric that offers no peaceful recourse, they should not be surprised when someone who believes them takes action.

So we come to end of Fjordman: Part One. Come back in a couple of days for Fjordman: Part Two, where I will discuss things like Fjordman’s take on feminism, some of his strange notions, and other elements to his writing, like his misuse of literature and popular culture in his articles. Next week I will post my discussion of ABB, but I need to mention again that I find Fjordman so much more interesting than ABB. Don’t be surprised if my analysis of Fjordman’s words far outweighs my analysis of ABB’s words.

Denne bokanmeldelsen er en av flere deler og blei først publisert på forfatterens blogg, ireadoddbooks.com. Teksten er gjengitt her med forfatterens samtykke, og må ikke benyttes av andre uten etter avtale.

Culture War to Shooting War

Av Scott McLemee. Han er essayist og kritiker og har publisert artikler i blant annet The New York Times, The Washington Post og The Boston Globe.

Shortly before the bombing and shooting spree in Norway last month that left 77 people dead, Anders Behring Breivik e-mailed a thousand people the document he called his “compendium” — a more accurate label than “manifesto,” as some have called it, since large chunks of text were cut and pasted from various sources rather than composed by the murderer himself. In its opening, Breivik says he spent three years preparing the work. It runs to 1,518 pages in PDF. There is no table of contents or index. Its final pages contain a number of photographic self-portraits. In one, Breivik is dressed in a uniform with a patch that reads “Special Issue Multiculti Traitor Hunting Permit.” He holds a weapon, aiming it somewhat to the reader’s left.

Just having the file open on my computer’s desktop for the past couple of days has proven to be depressing. I was in no hurry to read Breivik’smagnum rantus, and the decision to download it was not a matter of morbid curiosity. If anything, I tried to avoid learning more about the massacre than absolutely necessary. Certain kinds of sensationalism leave you feeling contaminated. In any case, the inescapable details proved all too familiar. Breivik’s anti-feminism and Islamophobic rage, his conviction that “multiculturalism” and “political correctness” are destroying civilization, and must be stopped — all of this is the usual stuff of contemporary resentment. Even his “traitor hunting permit” is standard-issue misanthropy.

But there turns out to be more to Breivik’s text than the usual hateful boilerplate. The killer was also a perverse sort of public intellectual.
He devotes almost 30 pages of single-spaced text to a peculiar tour of 20th-century thought. It is poorly informed but passionate. Breivik thinks of himself as an enemy of critical theory, which, by his reckoning, has ruined modern culture by undermining the rightful authority of European males. In particular, he appears obsessed with the influence of the Frankfurt School of philosophers and social scientists who fled the Nazis in the 1930s. (Many ended up in the United States; their research foundation, the Institute for Social Research, was affiliated with Columbia University between 1935 and 1950.) From the account in Breivik’s compendium, the school emerges as a tireless, ruthless, single-minded force seeking to destroy the good old days. This is unintentionally funny, given that a number of Frankfurt School thinkers were culturally — and by the 1960s even politically — rather conservative.

These opening pages of Breivik’s compendium are polemical and delusional, in equal measure. But the document is significant for at least a couple of reasons. The first is that it is the cornerstone of an effort not just to rationalize an act of violence, but to encourage others to follow his example. (A few hundred pages later, he gives advice on explosives and so forth.)

The other noteworthy thing about Breivik’s section on intellectual history is its provenance. All of his ideas came from the United States. Even that may be understating it. Nearly every syllable of Breivik’s diatribe against critical theory, “cultural Marxists,” and militant feminism was taken from a think tank in the Washington, D.C., area. His rampage was, in effect, the American culture wars continued by other means.

A good summary of Breivik’s opening pages appears in “The Time of the Spectacle,” a book now being written by Douglas Kellner, who is a professor of philosophy at UCLA. He has published a number of volumes on critical theory — including a study of the Frankfurt School figure Herbert Marcuse, who features so prominently in Breivik’s text as to be one of the main villains. Kellner provided me with some paragraphs from a recent draft of his work in progress, and I would prefer to quote his remarks on the compendium rather than having to spend any more time reading the damned thing.

Breivik uses the term “cultural Marxism,” writes Kellner, to label “everything that he opposes, including all forms of left, liberal, and progressive thought…. In his genealogies of cultural Marxism, he privileges the Frankfurt School whose work he interprets as the origins of the ‘political correctness’ movement (i.e. anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, and other forms of tolerance)….” There is no evidence that the author read a single work by a Frankfurt School thinker or anyone else that he denounces. “The presentation is generally trite,” notes Kellner, “and based on secondary sources.”

Nor, may I add, are those secondary sources always reliable. We are informed that the Italian Communist thinker Antonio Gramsci concluded that “a Bolshevik-style uprising could not be brought about by Western workers due to the nature of their Christian souls.” From this we must conclude that the Russian Orthodox Church was either pro-Bolshevik or non-Christian. (Of course, that would assume some knowledge of the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church.)

“At a secret meeting in Germany in 1923,” reads another especially silly passage, the Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukacs “proposed the concept of inducing ‘Cultural Pessimism’ in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.” Now, the whole point of Lukacs’s work was that alienation and disintegration were the inevitable products of modernity itself. Besides, nobody had to organize a secret meeting to generate cultural pessimism in Germany in 1923. If you wanted to find some, you could go out on the street.

Examples could be multiplied ad nauseam. The text almost collapses under the weight of its own misinformation. But Kellner’s point is a bit different. He notes that Breivik’s remarks on critical theory open “with the claim that ‘one of conservativism’s most important insights is that all ideologies are wrong.’ ” As an attempt to trump the Frankfurt School, this misses the point by a mile. Their work was never an effort to create an ideology; it tried to analyze the logic of social systems, and most of all to understand the origins of fascism, but never offered a programmatic alternative. (Nor did they find much good to say about the Soviet Union. A German Communist once said he wished the Frankfurters would join the party just so they could be purged.)

Kellner notes that Breivik’s compendium “clearly [embodies] an ‘ideology’ in which he imagines Europe was [until recently] free of Muslims and all forms of cultural Marxism.” But if all ideologies are wrong, then Breivik has negated his own enterprise. The whole thing “self-deconstructs,” in Kellner’s appraisal.
Unfortunately, self-contradiction never kept a homicidal maniac from completing his mission. And as it happens, the pages in question were not actually written by Anders Breivik. The ersatz erudition all comes secondhand, from a collection of articles called Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology, edited by William S. Lind, which is readily available online (jfr. også tidligere innlegg på denne bloggen, red. anm.). It was published in 2004 by the Free Congress Foundation, a think tank founded by the prominent conservative fund raiser Paul Weyrich in 1977. (Its offices are currently in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Va.)

The foundation once sponsored a TV network called National Empowerment Television, which is now defunct. In 1999, it aired a program called “Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School.” One of the talking heads appearing on it was Martin Jay, a professor of history at UC Berkeley. A substantial chunk of Breivik’s text consists of a tendentious chapter-by-chapter account of Jay’s study The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923-1950 (Little, Brown, 1973). This summary is taken, more or less verbatim, from a chapter of the FCF’s book from 2004.

In an essay appearing in the winter 2011 issue of the cultural journalSalmagundi, Jay wrote about finding himself involuntarily associated with “an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line” about the Frankfurters. “When I was approached for the interview,” he writes, “I was not informed of the political agenda of the broadcasters, who seemed very professional and courteous. Having done a number of similar shows in the past on one or another aspect of the history of the Frankfurt School, I naïvely assumed the end result would reflect my opinions with some fidelity, at least within the constraints of the edited final product. But what happened instead was that all my critical remarks about the hypocrisy of the right-wing campaign against political correctness were lost and what remained were simple factual statements confirming the Marxist origins of the School, which had never been a secret to anyone.”

The NET program is still around, courtesy of YouTube. Jay’s essay is not now available at Salmagundi’s website. The magazine ought to put it up, simply in the interests of intellectual hygiene.

The claims that the Frankfurt School intended to destroy civilization and impose a new tyranny upon the word were expanded upon in Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology. But the book cast its net a little wider than the Frankfurt school — devoting a few pages to deconstruction, for example. Breivik took a selection of material from the collection, making it more appropriate for the audience he hoped to reach. When necessary, he tweaked the text a little. Mentions of the United States or “this country” were made into references to Europe.

Not everything could be repurposed, however. The best parts of chapter five would not have spoken to the Norwegian condition, but I recommend it for its interesting revelation of the American political passions infusing the book. The chapter is called “Radical Feminism and Political Correctness,” but it goes to some places you might not expect from the title.

As much trouble as the Frankfurt School and the cultural Marxists have caused, it seems, “the feminization of American politics” has even deeper roots than that. It began with “the idealistic Transcendentalists” like Margaret Fuller and Henry David Thoreau.The problem was not simply that they were feminists. They were also “abolitionists, bent on destroying slavery and Southern culture as well.” Their ideas “propelled our nation toward Civil War.” Things have never quite gotten back on track. And now, 150 years later, the major political parties hold “’feminized’ conventions featuring soft, emotional, Oprah Winfrey-type orations and sentimental film clips of the presidential candidates.”

Clearly Ralph Waldo Emerson is just as responsible for this totalitarian nightmare as Friedrich Engels — possibly even more so. In any case, we have the Transcendentalists to blame for ruining a perfectly good plantation system.

Just before deleting Brievik’s document and related drivel from my laptop, I called Stephen Eric Bronner, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. He has published a good deal about the Frankfurt School, including a recent volume on it for the Oxford University Press series of “very short introductions.” Not surprisingly, he was aware of the Frankfurt derangement syndrome. “It’s the usual mixture of relatively legitimate claims with complete nonsense,” he said.
It’s the nonsense that’s toxic, of course. But the imaginary gallery of bogeymen is strangely revealing, even so. The real-life Frankfurt School thinkers “were concerned with liberty and autonomy,” Bronner said, “and opposed to mass society. Their entire outlook was shaped by the Holocaust, which also shaped their fear of political action, their very deep distrust of mass movements. Their outlook was individualist, nonconformist, bohemian. This idea that they wanted to dominate the culture is absurd.”

Absurd, but not inexplicable, perhaps. Brievik et al. can scarcely hide the wish to dominate their own societies. They yearn for a mass movement to wipe out any obstacles to that happening.

Almost exactly two years ago, I wrote a column about a book from the late 1940s called Prophets of Deceit. Its main author was Leo Lowenthal, a German émigré sociologist and member of the Frankfurt School. Lowenthal and his colleague analyzed the speeches and writings of a certain kind of demagogue that became prevalent during the 1930s. They warned of subversive foreigners and sinister elites bent on destroying everything their audience held dear. Lowenthal wrote that these figures concocted narrative that were “always facile, simple, and final, like daydreams.” They gave their followers “permission to indulge in anticipatory fantasies in which they violently discharge [their] emotions against alleged enemies.”

Sometimes the fantasy is enough — but not always.“The Frankfurt School wanted a more cosmopolitan, civilized, open society,” said Bronner. “I think that’s part of why the School has become part of these bizarre stories.” That sounds right. They conceived a world beyond resentment. It seems like that would be a good thing. But not for everyone; for some people, resentment is all they have left.

Artikkelen blei først publisert hos Inside Higher ED, og er reprodusert med deres og forfatterens uttrykkelige samtykke. All videre publisering må avtales med dem.

Terroristens endimensjonale kulturforståelse

Av Benedicte M. Irgens. Førstelektor i japansk ved Universitetet i Bergen.

Vår hjemfødte terrorist later til å se på Japan og Sør-Korea som en slags monokulturelle idealsamfunn, og har bedt om å bli vurdert av en japansk psykiater, siden han tror at hans såkalte æresfølelse vil bli bedre forstått av en japansk sakkyndig enn en norsk en, som uansett vil være befengt med “kulturmarxisme”.

Som norsk Japan-kjenner finner jeg det naturlig å kommentere dette mildt sagt underlige ønsket, men synes det er vanskelig å se hvilken tråd jeg skal begynne å nøste med. Temaet Japan, homogenitet og kultur vekker så mange diskusjoner og argumenter i mitt akademisk anlagte hode at jeg får problemer med presse dem inn i denne høyst spesielle konteksten og koble dem til ekstremistens virkelighetsfjerne og endimensjonale kulturforståelse. Les forøvrig gjerne denne bloggposten om Japan og monokulturalisme.

Jeg får begynne i det ekstreme: Hadde den eksentriske forfatteren Mishima Yukio fortsatt levd, så er det ikke umulig at ABB ville kunne møte en halvhjertet forståelse for sitt “ærefulle” oppdrag som “kriger”. Fascisten Mishima opprettet endog sin egen lille hær og iscenesatte i 1970 et slags dramatisert kuppforsøk mot de nasjonale selvforsvarsstyrkene, som han betraktet som forræderiske og ryggradsløse. Han avsluttet sin opptreden med å begå rituelt selvmord etter ekte samurai-oppskrift. Men i motsetning til ABB var Mishima en usedvanlig talentfull forfatter, og det eneste livet han noen gang tok, var sitt eget. Jeg tviler på om han ville se på massakren på Utøya som videre ærerik.

Heller enn å grave seg ned i denne lett kvalmende tematikken kan det kanskje være vel så interessant å begynne i en annen ende: å se på hvordan denne Japan-relaterte biten av nyhetene ble mottatt blant japanere flest, anno 2011. Bombeangrepet og massakren ble selvfølgelig gitt bred dekning også i japanske medier i dagene etter 22. juli. Nylig begynte ABBs syn på Japan som et idealsamfunn og hans ønske om å bli vurdert av en japansk psykiater å dukke opp på enkelte nyhetssider, og kommentert på blogger og i sosiale medier. Nå må vi huske på at dette for de fleste er nyheter fra et land som ligger svært langt borte, og det skaper en viss avstand til hendelsen, men reaksjonene viser uansett et mangfold av synspunkter og holdninger i denne påståtte monokulturen.

Mange har blandede følelser og vet ikke helt hvordan de skal reagere. For å få ordentlig tak i disse blandede følelsene, kan vi forestille oss et motsatt (om enn svært urealistisk) scenario: En venstreekstrem, japansk otaku massakrerer ungdom i et høyreorientert politisk miljø og utnevner Norge og Sverige til idealsamfunn i sitt manifest, uten en gang å ha besøkt landene. Så ber han om å bli vurdert av en norsk psykiater, som han mener bedre vil kunne forstå hans følelse av…tja….”solidaritet”. Forvirrende? Skal man le eller gråte? Bli smigret eller støtt?

Her er flere reaksjoner på ABBs Japan-hylling fra Twitter og ulike japanske nettsteders kommentarfelt:

“Jeg tror han har misforstått helt. Det finnes folk fra mange ulike land bosatt i Japan, og vi har også utenlandske kriminelle her. Selv om han vurderer Japan høyt, så kan ingen verdsette sånne grusomme handlinger. Når jeg tenker på de unge som ble drept, blir jeg trist, ikke bare som japaner, men som menneske. Jeg sender min medfølelse til ofrene og de pårørende.”

“Breivik har fullstendig misforstått Japan”
“Dette må være en slags FUJIYAMA GEISHA i ny drakt. Han har sett The Last Samurai for mange ganger.”
“Hæ? Japan som idealsamfunn? Hvor har han fått det fra?”
“Det må da være ironisk ment?”
“Hvis han mener den tradisjonelle Japanese spirit, så skulle han vel begått harakiri!”
“OK, send ham hit! Han kan vurderes av våre psykiatere, sitte i våre rettssaler og komme i våre fengsler. Jeg tenker den norske befolkningen hadde satt pris på det!” (Bilder fra norske fengsler har også spredd seg i mediene, med kommentarer om hvor ufattelig luksuriøse de ser ut.)
“Hadde han blitt vurdert hos oss, ville han fått dødsstraff.”

En koreansk-japansk blogger forteller relativt detaljert om at i Norge får alle studenter utdelt stipend i studietiden (utenkelig i det kapitalistiske Japan) – “og så kommer denne fyren og snakker om Japan som et idealsamfunn!”

Mange vil ha seg frabedt å få landet sitt trukket inn i en morders verden:

“Skal vi bli et slags hellig sted for høyrekstreme fra Europa nå – fri og bevare oss!”
“Uff, nå kommer vel Vesten til å få merkelige misoppfatninger av oss – igjen!”
“Vi har nok med jordskjelv og atomtrøbbel – ikke trekk oss inn i dette!”
“Skal vi blitt sett på som en terroriststat, nå da?”

Så har vi de som er litt mer på siden:
“Heller muslimer enn radioaktiv stråling”
“Japanske psykiatere? Jo takk, skal du ha – han vet tydeligvis ikke hvor inkompetente psykiaterne våre er.”

Merk også denne:
“Jeg blir dårlig av dette. Særlig når jeg tenker på hvordan våre høyreekstreme vil reagere. Jeg synes jeg kan høre dem: Dream on, unge mann, vi er nok ikke så frie for fremmedkulturelle elementer som du tror, vi har jo fullt med koreanere og kinesere her”

Og ganske riktig. Våger man seg inn på det notoriske nettstedet 2channel, så møter man på mer ubehagelige synspunkter. Japans høyreekstreme er relativt synlige, særlig på nettet (såkalte ネトウヨ) og det sitter en del unyanserte sympatisører rundt om foran PC-skjermene og lirer av seg litt av hvert på anonyme nettsteder som 2channel. Jeg føler meg ikke bekvem med å gjengi så mye av dette, men her er en innholdsmessig representativ variant:

“Japan er nok langt fra det monokulturelle paradiset han tror – vi har kanskje ikke så mange muslimer, men vi har altfor mange koreanere.”

Det er det som er gjengangeren – i Japan er det ikke muslimene de ekstreme nasjonalistene vil ha ut, det er koreanerne. Og ironisk nok er det de best integrerte som er problemet – etterkommerne av de som japanerne selv tvangsflyttet til Japan før 2. verdenskrig.

Alle har sitt å stri med, kan man si.
Én oppsummerer det slik:

“Europeiske konservative sier: Japan lar seg ikke kontrollere av islamister og jøder – lær av Japan! Japanske konservative sier: Europa lar seg ikke kontrollere av Korea og Kina – lær av Europa.”

Fremmedfrykt er åpenbart et universelt fenomen.

Litt fakta til slutt: Japan har 125 millioner innbyggere og en innvandrerbefolkning på litt over 2 millioner (ca 1,6%). Den største gruppen av disse 1,6 prosentene er kinesere (30%), deretter koreanere (26%) og så brasilianere (som ofte er japanskættede) 14%. Grei oversikt her. Innvandringslovene er strenge, samtidig som fødselstallene synker, befolkningen eldes og behovet for arbeidskraft øker. Innvandring er et svært aktuelt tema i dagens Japan.

Innlegget ble først publisert på forfatterens egen blogg.

En totalitær mentalitet

Av Øystein Sørensen, Professor i historie, UiO

Terroristen og massemorderen Anders Behring Breiviks manifest 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence er gjennomsyret av en totalitær mentalitet.

Manifestet er preget av klipping og liming, med referanser til mange ulike forfattere og med varierende intellektuelt nivå. Men det går likevel an å se en viss helhet og sammenheng i det. Meget kort fortalt mener Breivik selv at han tilhører en liten elite som har sett den store og ene Sannheten om samfunn, historie, politikk og menneskeliv. Han mener videre at denne innsikten gir ham rett til å skalte og valte med andres liv som han vil.

Ifølge Breivik er Europa, hans primære referanseramme, i ferd med å bli ødelagt. Det eneste som kan stanse veien mot undergangen, er et revolusjonært brudd. Han avviser å arbeide innenfor det demokratiske systemet (som i parentes bemerket ifølge ham ikke har vært ordentlig demokratisk siden rundt 1950). Isteden vil han ha væpnet revolusjon og revolusjonær borgerkrig.

Breivik har meget grundig identifisert sine viktigste fiender, selve Skurkene som er skyld i at Europa nærmer seg undergangen: En politisk korrekt venstreelite i Europa («kulturmarxister» i Breiviks terminologi) og muslimer. Det er også en sterk konspirasjonsteori inne i fortellingen: Den europeiske eliten og muslimske ledere har gått sammen i en gigantisk konspirasjon for å ødelegge europeisk kultur og tradisjon. Det viktigste virkemidlet deres er masseinnvandring av muslimer.

Men Breiviks revolusjonære oppstand tar ikke sikte på å redde det bestående. Han vil skape noe nytt, et europeisk idealsamfunn slik han vil ha det.

Det som mer enn noe annet gjør dette idékomplekset totalitært, er at Breivik mener at han har rett til å ta i bruk alle midler for å sette sine ideer igjennom. Om nødvendig vold og terror i masseomfang. Han, og de han måtte ha av meningsfeller, mener seg å være hevet over alle andre mennesker. Enkeltmenneskers liv betyr ingen ting i den store sammenhengen de ser for seg.

Breivik er, som andre små og store totalitære tenkere, preget av det vi med Zygmunt Bauman kan kalle gartnerimpulsen. Gartneren vil ha en ren og harmonisk have, og for å få det, må han luke ut ugress. Breivik og hans meningsfeller må luke ut alle mulige og virkelige fiender som kan forstyrre renheten i samfunnet. En annen måte å si det på, er at Breivik forsøker å leke Gud. Han vil bestemme hvem som er fiender og hvem som er venner, han vil bestemme over liv og død.

Breiviks ideelle, rene Europa skal være et Europa uten muslimer og uten islam. Historieskrivningen i manifestet er en historie med helter og skurker, en historie i hvitt og svart, der det hvite er det kristne Europa og det svarte er den islamske verden. Breiviks ideelle Europa skal også være et Europa uten venstreradikale aktører og meninger. Marxister (slik Breivik definerer dem) skal likvideres uten videre, og mer allment skal mennesker etter forgodtbefinnende drepes eller deporteres i tusen- og milliontall. Ikke-marxistiske «ekstreme liberale» skal – kanskje – få lov til å leve, men da må de bo i egne storbygettoer.

Breivik er ikke nynazist. Han er uttalt venn av Israel og jødene, og han er (eller rettere sagt var) frimurer, for bare å nevne to prominente fiendebilder i så vel gammel som ny nazisme. Ikke er han spesielt mye preget av en overordnet biologisk tenkemåte heller. Skal man henge merkelapper på hans totalitære forestillinger, kan man godt kalle ham høyreekstrem eller ekstremt høyreautoritær. Men ingen av disse uttrykkene fanger helt opp det sterke elementet av væpnet revolt og revolusjonært brudd man finner i manifestet. Breivik er ikke noen fascist i klassisk italiensk Mussolini-forstand. Men det er sentrale elementer i hans tankegods som tydelig tangerer enkelte strømninger i europeisk neofascisme etter 1945. Det gjelder dyrkelsen av vold. Det gjelder også idealene som blir stilt opp, i all korthet europeisk historie, kultur og sivilisasjon. Eller rettere sagt et spesielt utvalg og en spesiell tolkning av europeisk historie og kultur.

Et sentralt element er kristendommen og kirken, i Breiviks tilfelle en tradisjonalistisk, hierarkisk kirke som skal samle og omfatte både katolikker og protestanter. Både kirken og samfunnet for øvrig må ta et grundig oppgjør med alt som heter feminisme og utagerende umoral.

Breiviks ideal er et patriarkalsk og autoritært Europa, i siste instans styrt av en selvbestaltet elite. Han forestiller seg en europeisk føderasjon, et slags utvidet super-EU. Innenfor de rammene som eliten setter, skal det være et begrenset politisk demokrati i føderasjonen. Mer konkret skal det opprettes et «konservativt vokterråd» som skal passe på at det begrensede demokratiet ikke sklir ut. «Massedemokratiet» i Vesten får mye av skylden for alt som har gått galt etter 1950. Til tross for Breiviks holdninger til muslimer, er hans ideelle styringsmodell ikke så langt unna Khomeinis politiske system i Iran.

Eliten skal nærmere bestemt være en hemmelig, strengt hierarkisk ridderorden. Breivik hevder å representere en slags moderne utgave av Tempelridderordenen og er forsiktig uttrykt meget opptatt av alt som har å gjøre med grader, ritualer, symbolikk, medaljer og utmerkelser i den angivelige ordenen. Det er masse obskurantistisk ridderordenmystikk i manifestet, men også denne obskurantismen er politisert.

Den hemmelige ridderordenen skal være fortroppen i revolusjonen og borgerkrigen, og etter seieren skal det nye Europa styres i overensstemmelse med dens verdier. Ifølge Breivik vil den revolusjonære borgerkrigen bli langvarig, gå igjennom mange faser og bli avsluttet med et politisk og militært kupp. Den vil bli kronet med seier, og det nye Europa vil bli etablert, i 2083.

Hadde det ikke vært for terroraksjonen i regjeringskvartalet og massakren på Utøya, kunne man avfeid Breiviks skriverier som merkverdige og ganske avskyelige politiske fantasier av en type man finner mye av på Internett i våre dager. Men i motsetning til de aller fleste som serverer forskrudde politiske fantasier på Internett, har Breivik til de grader satt sine ideer ut i livet. Det gjør at ideene, uansett hvor ondsinnede, ravende gale og intellektuelt lite tilfredsstillende de måtte være, fortjener å bli gått etter i sømmene.

Kronikken ble først publisert i Dagbladet, og er gjengitt med deres og forfatterens uttrykkelige samtykke. All videre bruk må være avtalt med dem.