Lars Gule: An older version of Anders Behring Breivik?

Also published at Gates of Vienna

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of the political climate today in Norway knows that it is literally career suicide for an academic to oppose the established truth in the tiny little fishbowl that is Norwegian academia. The bowl is full of lidless and bloodthirsty piranhas that are tirelessly working to ensure that everything is running according to the script. Those who diverge from the pre-approved plot are dealt with swiftly and in a very brutal manner. They are virtually shredded in public.

The piranhas set a standard that everyone in the bowl has to submit to. Their brutal behaviour and their willingness to attack sends out a very clear warning to those who might harbour any dissident thoughts. In many ways it’s an academic miniature version of the former Soviet Union, a regime which these self appointed piranhas used to glorify in the 1970s and ’80s, when many of them were active members of various communist organizations and called for a bloody revolution.

Despite the brutal and oppressive disciplinary regime that they have managed to create in Norway, every now and again someone in the fishbowl dares to stick their neck forward and accurately diagnose the obvious democratic deficit and the blatant political bias which exists inside the bowl. The latest dissident is Alexandra Irene Larsen, who wrote an op-ed in VG where she confronted the left-wing agenda found in the Norwegian academy, and in particular in human sciences, which she accurately described as being completely hijacked by leftwing ideologues. To the piranhas this was an inexcusable act of treason which they couldn’t let pass unpunished. They knew that they had to act, and do so in such a manner that it would quell any similar future attempts. They had to set an example, and it had to be a powerful one.

It is quite a spectacle to behold so-called researchers and scientists — who by nature should be very open-minded and actively encourage independent thinking — act like little Stalins whenever someone goes against the consensus that they have imposed upon the rest of the flock. Irrefutable facts and logic are of course impossible to dismiss by rational arguments, so the piranhas have adopted tactics that conveniently sidestep these inconvenient obstacles. Their method is to aim below the belt and portray the messenger of traditional scientific principles as evil, despicable, corrupt and dishonest. They use guilt by association, ridicule, intimidation, sabotage and any other vile technique in their repertoire to smear their victims.

In 2011 they were provided a god-sent present in the form of the Utøya massacre, which inserted a gigantic trump card up their sleeve. A trump card that was so potent that it could beat anything anyone could throw at them, hands down. To link someone with Anders Behring Breivik, especially in Norway, is the equivalent of publicly accusing someone of being a paedophile. The mud sticks like glue and will never quite go away, no matter how unsubstantiated and unfair the accusations are.

Lars Gule is one of these pompous self-appointed piranhas who will use any tactic to publicly crucify those who cross his ideological path. On Thursday he struck once again when in a very aggressive and mendacious manner he exacted his revenge against Alexandra Irene Larsen for having the temerity to shine a critical light on the academic milieu for which he is one of the prominent ideological suppliers. He did this before an audience which consisted mostly of ideologically indoctrinated students and other leftwing academics. Without an ounce of shame he publicly accused Mrs. Larsen of being ignorant, of not having read the proper books, of being intellectually dishonest, and last but not least of having views that are shared by the readership of the Islam-critical blog Gates of Vienna, which according to Gule was Anders Behring Breivik’s favourite website.

The basis of Gule’s extraordinary ‘logical’ deduction was that the op-ed in which Mrs. Larsen criticised the academic climate in Norway had been translated into English and then published at Gates of Vienna. This astonishing nugget of intellectual wisdom comes from a person whose title designates him an associate professor.

The fact that Ms. Larsen had nothing to do with the translation, that she had not given her consent to such an undertaking and was more than likely unaware of the fact that it even existed meant nothing to Lars Gule. The mere fact that the op-ed appeared at Gates of Vienna was more than enough for him, and he accused and condemned her based on something that he himself knew very well that she had no part in. He employed the exact methods he accused Mrs. Larsen of employing, and he did it in such a way that no member of the audience was left in any doubt that they would receive the same treatment should they dare to oppose him or any of his fellow self-appointed salivating watchdogs.

I see Lars Gule as a comic figure, somewhat like the village idiot of earlier times who would shout vile epithets and insults while frothing at the mouth in the town square to the amusement of the spectators that had gathered to behold the behaviour of one who was obviously less mentally gifted than themselves. And it would be fine if the media and academia treated him as the clown he is, but they don’t. The former wannabe terrorist who underwent training at a DFLP terrorist camp in 1977 — the equivalent of a modern day Al Qaeda camp — and who was sentenced to prison for having been caught with explosives which he had planned to use to carry out a terrorist attack inside Israel, gets to set the tone of what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable in Norway today.

It’s also completely preposterous that a person such as Gule is allowed to publicly condemn others and link them to ABB when he himself is one of the few living Norwegians who bears a strong ideological resemblance to Breivik. There are no more than a handful of ethnic Norwegian citizens who have been convicted of terrorist acts or planning to commit such acts. Lars Gule and Anders Behring Breivik are two of them.

Lars Gule likes to think that he has confronted his past and atoned for his sins, which he attributes to youthfulness and the volatile political situation in the Middle East at the time. But the fact of the matter is that his pitiful and pathetic explanations are just as believable as UFO sightings and green Martians walking around the desert in Nevada. It’s a complete mystery why no one has systematically challenged him in public on his murky and sinister past.

Gule maintains that he intended to place an explosive device outside a non-populated structure in Israel when he was caught with 750 grams of plastic explosives hidden in his backpack at the airport in Beirut in 1977. He has reassured the Norwegian public on numerous occasions that under no circumstances had he intended to target civilians with his powerful bomb, and the gullible Norwegian authorities and the pro-Palestinian Norwegian MSM have embraced this ‘confession’ and rolled out the red carpet so that he could rejoin the flock. No critical voices among the elites have contested this highly dubious version of events, and those individuals who hint that Gule’s account might not necessarily be accurate are quickly reprimanded for being rude and insulting.

Anyone with a fully working brain understands that a criminal when caught by the police will say anything to lessen the significance of his crime and do anything to try to reduce the time he has to spend in prison. The criminal will vehemently maintain that he didn’t do it, and if that tactic doesn’t work he will swear that he didn’t intend to hurt anyone, that it was an accident, that someone else committed the violent act, that he tried to help the victim and so on and so forth. There is a popular saying that prisons are full of innocent people. I venture that Gule is full of baloney.

Let’s look at it from a slightly different perspective. What if Breivik had been caught before he was able to carry out his hideous deeds in Oslo and Utøya in 2011? What if Anders Behring Breivik had maintained in police interviews that he had only intended to blow up an unpopulated structure far away from downtown Oslo and that he under no circumstances had intended to actively target innocent civilians? Would the authorities and the MSM have believed him? Would they have reprimanded those individuals who found this confession implausible and who maintained that it was more credible that ABB had intended to kill civilians?

How unlikely is it that Lars Gule employed the same tactic upon capture in Lebanon, and that he indeed had meant to kill innocent Israeli civilians? The Palestinian terrorist group he joined and supported in 1977 had three years earlier carried out a very bloody and cowardly terror attack inside Israel that resulted in significant loss of life. The infamous Ma’alot massacre of 1974, when DFLP attacked an Israeli elementary school and killed 27 people, mostly children between the ages of 14 and 16, would surely have been familiar to Gule at the time. And these were the people with whom Lars Gule ideologically identified and was so enthused about when he was caught at the airport in Beirut with 750 grams of plastic explosives hidden in his backpack. For all we know Gule could even have intended to blow up the plane that he was about to board.

It is also very plausible that he had a cover story that he fed to his Lebanese interrogators during the police interviews. It’s not uncommon for terrorists to concoct elaborate cover stories that they rely upon when they are arrested. Why should it be any different with Lars Gule?

To me Lars Gule is a despicable person who should be shunned and ostracized, just as Anders Behring Breivik would have been had he not been incarcerated. The only difference between Gule and ABB is that Gule was caught and ABB succeeded. Breivik had also compiled an incriminating manifesto which irrevocably tied him to his actions, and showed that he had intended all along to let himself be apprehended in order to spread his twisted ideology to the rest of the world. Gule was a little bit brighter than that, and didn’t incriminate himself with such nonsense. It’s also doubtful that he would have hung around for the police to come and arrest him should he have succeeded in carrying out his terrorist attack.

Of course it is highly unlikely that Gule will ever be held accountable for his actions. After all, he lives in a country whose leaders protect those on the left who carry out militant acts and commit high treason, as is the case with those politicians who actively collaborated with the KGB and Stasi. The Norwegian authorities have refused to release the names of these Norwegian traitors. But people should at least be made aware of one particular creep who is allowed to enjoy a perfectly normal career and live a perfectly normal live in a country where the rational people are deemed racists and bigots, and would-be terrorists and traitors are treated with the utmost respect.

(Alexandra Irene Larsen's translated op-ed which was published at Gates of Vienna.)

 

The Gypsy case

Also published at Gates of Vienna

 

This clip is important for several reasons.

 

It’s important because of the highly ideological and uncritical way basic information of the case is presented; it’s obvious from the beginning that the narrator has a political agenda.

It’s also important because vital information from the ruling has deliberately been omitted. According to the judgment of the Bergen City Court, Mirela Mustaza, the woman who is being portrayed as a victim of institutionalized Norwegian racism in the clip, allowed and facilitated the rape of her 11-year-old daughter back in 2008 when her daughter was forcibly married to another gypsy. The narrator ‘failed’ to mention this very important piece of information, and I’m sure a lot of viewers wonder why this fact was left out.

According to the court ruling, Mustaza’s daughter was raped by her new ‘husband’ on the wedding night while being held down by several grown men. She now lives at an undisclosed location in Sweden and was very upset about the dishonest way facts were presented in the story.

NRK has stated that the reason why they left out the information about the rape was due to the fact that it happened back in 2008, and that it would therefore ‘complicate things!’

Another piece of information that was conveniently left out was the fact that several of the convicted adults indecently assault the children in their care while they were touring Norway and Sweden in 2010. The narrator also ‘forgot’ to mention that some of the children were forcibly married, or rather sold by their families to members of the group for approximately 10,000 and 15,000 euros, hence the trafficking aspect of the conviction.

And last but not least, the narrator failed to mention that the convicted adults and the children in their care were involved in theft and scams that pocketed for the group several hundred thousand NoK, which was then wired back to Romania. This refutes the claim made by the narrator that the members of the group are poor and vulnerable.

Another important aspect of this case is that the Norwegian media didn’t bother to react, nor did they attempt to refute the information presented in the story. This is grotesque, considering that the majority of the big newspapers in Norway covered the so-called ‘gypsy case’ when it was before the court in Bergen in 2012. In other words, the MSM was aware of the basic facts of the case, but deliberately chose not to raise the matter.

This could of course arise from the fact that the quality of journalism in Norway leaves a lot to be desired, or that the media in Norway are mostly left-wing and choose to downplay incidents that go against their political beliefs, or a combination of both. This particular case only received MSM attention when Document.no picked up on it and started making some noise. It took almost two weeks before the MSM in Norway paid any attention to it.

The main reason for this deafening silence is a concerted effort on the part of certain strata of the political establishment to counter the massive public outcry to the Gypsy invasion of Norway, an invasion which has seen petty crime skyrocket all over the country. In some of the more sickening cases, Romanian and Bulgarian gypsies have violently assaulted very old people and stolen their valuables.

Those brave people who have voiced their opinions despite the official intimidation campaign have quickly found themselves at the receiving end of the very effective Norwegian smear machinery, and have been branded ‘racists’ by the MSM. I suppose it is ‘understandable’ to a certain extent that the MSM wanted to downplay this case, as it paints a very different picture than the glossy fairytale story about ‘poor and honest oppressed people’ who are simply trying to make a better life for themselves in Norway the ‘narrative’ that they, the MSM, have been force-feeding us for such a long time.

NRK, the state broadcaster which aired the clip, is financed through a compulsory yearly fee which has to be paid by anyone who owns a TV set in Norway. More and more people have finally begun to realize that it’s morally wrong to demand that ordinary Norwegians finance a media outlet that is so blatantly slanted politically. And this is by no means an isolated incident. In the 1980s and ‘90s news clips like this were commonplace, but back then NRK and the leftwing Norwegian MSM enjoyed a literal media monopoly where critical voices were persona non grata.

Thankfully, it seems that conservative independent media outlets in Norway have finally managed to gain enough strength to make a difference. Let’s hope that NRK and the MSM start paying some attention and see the value of unbiased and honest reporting.

For those who read Norwegian, here’s a copy of the Court’s indictment of the defendants as presented during their arraignment.

The new conquistadors

A heated debate is currently sweeping through the political landscape in Norway. The subject of this frenzied verbal mass brawl is whether Norway has a unique culture or not, and as expected prominent individuals from the hard-left are frantically trying to silence their opponents by heavy handed use of ridicule, derision and bullying tactics. They are desperately trying to intimidate others into accepting their point of view which is that there is no such thing as a unique Norwegian culture and that what is commonly referred to as such is simply a mishmash of foreign ideas and imported traditions that Norwegians themselves never had any control over. To them Norway is simply a terra nullius populated by a people without roots, customs, history or anything else of any measurable value.  The fervour that they display in this endeavour is on par with that of the rabid communists of the baby boomer generation who aggressively proselytized about the superiority of communism in the late sixties and early seventies. And just like the baby boomers before them they are wilfully engaging in a game of divide and conquer in order to achieve their insidious political goals at any cost.

They have of course strong ideological reasons for promulgating such a political hypothesis and try to ram it down the throats of a gullible populace. They know very well that if they can trick the masses into accepting that Norway has no unique culture then they can aggressively argue that Norway cannot possibly be threatened or destroyed culturally by mass immigration. It stands to reason that if something doesn’t exist then it cannot possibly be destroyed. If they are successful in their odious endeavour and have their way Norwegian culture will be rendered obsolete and meaningless and Norway will simply cease to be Norway. The logical conclusions of their argument is that Norway could replace its entire population with Pakistani nationals and still continue to be Norway as there is no distinctive Norwegian culture. Of course most coherent people would see the irrationality and absurdity of such a statement.  

So why do the hard-left choose to convey views that are so easy to refute? 

They do it because they realize that if a message is repeated often enough it will eventually start to sink in regardless of its preposterous conclusions, and by highlighting the ‘inhumane’ and ‘despicable’ nature of their opponents arguments and views they send out a clear and unambiguous signal that people should stay away from ‘the unpalatable’ or else pay the consequences. Their goal is to instil fear and that’s why they rely so heavily on bullying tactics. They want to control people by intimidation and fear plain and simple.  This modus operandi is of course not only limited to the question of the ‘elusive’ Norwegian culture it’s also used on issues such as immigration, homosexuality, gun control and pretty much any other leftwing social issues one can care to think of. They simply cannot accept a free, civilised and unbiased exchange of opinions because in such a scenario their views would quickly be picked apart and squashed under the heel of logic and rationality.

They also rely heavily on ‘benevolent’ and passive aggressive argumentation in order to win over the uninformed and the young.  They question the motives of anyone who has the nerve to exalt Norwegian values and are quick to point out that such ‘racist’ drivel only creates an unhealthy ‘us versus them mentality’ which breeds conflicts that will further alienate the immigrant population and galvanize differences and animosity rather than alleviate them. Strangely enough the hard-left are quick to lecture others in a condescending manner that the immense and insurmountable problems associated with third world mass immigration will sort itself when the immigrants get a chance by the ‘racist’ Norwegians to integrate, which most people of course would interpret as a willingness to adopt to our culture and way of life. ...

Most people however realize that cultures exist and that they are relatively easy to define. To put it bluntly, a culture is the collective sum of customs, traditions and values that characterises a specific national or ethnic group. The easiest way to describe the essence of a particular culture is to compare it with other cultures. The differences found can then be promoted as the uniqueness or individuality of the culture in question.

The coexistence of different cultures doesn’t necessarily mean that they will amalgamate and give birth to a new super culture. There are numerous examples around the world that would contradict such a claim. The aboriginals in Australia are still hanging on to their culture after almost 250 years of white rule and many aboriginals are to this day very reluctant to immerse themselves in Anglo-Saxon mainstream culture. Same thing goes with the US and Canada and their indigenous populations. Even the Sami people in Norway have fiercely held on to their traditions, customs and language a fact that the Norwegian authorities recognize along with the majority of the leftwing agitators who fervently deny the existence of their own culture.

 Unfortunately this is a point that seems lost upon them, or more likely they chose to ignore it as they see it as a means to an end, which is the ultimate and total destruction of their own culture and nation.

 

Social democratic totalitarianism

The latest school shooting in the USA is just another link in the long chain of episodes that the left is ruthlessly exploiting for its own pernicious politically purposes. The message that the left is trying to sell is that anyone who support liberal gun laws or who wants to see the second amendment of the US constitution upheld are somehow morally accountable for the killing of 27 innocent individuals, mostly children, in Newtown, Connecticut.This is of course an absurd allegation to make. It’s also a very distasteful one at that, but that doesn’t deter the left who is trying to convince us that anybody who opposes stricter gun legislation is evil and should be ashamed of themselves.

This moral outrage isn’t exclusively limited to supporters of liberal gun legislation. It is also applied to anyone who dares to oppose the many other selected pet causes of the left such as gay marriage, Islam and multiculturalism. If someone dares to express even the slightest doubt about the wisdom of allowing gays to marry then they are automatically branded as homophobic. The same applies to those who express concern about multiculturalism. They are also quickly labelled, in those instances as despicable racists, bigots and so forth. The reason they have all these vile epithets hurled at them is because the left are suffering from a political tantrum syndrome which they feel give them the moral right to demonize people that don’t agree with them.  It’s an infantile reaction coming from people that in many cases are still stuck mentally in the kindergarten sandbox.

We have now reached an era where ad hominem tactics are being used as a deliberate political strategy to silence political opponents. It has become so bad that espousing conservative political views is now considered to be the new taboo. Character assassination has been turned into a debating technique which aim is to pull into question the morality of any purveyor of views that haven’t been sanctioned by the left. This constant pressure to embrace and adopt certain views through the extensive use of intimidation has delivered a decisive blow to traditional western values and it has been a very effective tool in the psychological neutering process of the western male.

Needless to say it is therefore imperative to identify the tactics employed by the left and to have the necessary knowhow to deflect these tactics and throw them back in their faces. The best way is of course still the traditional way which is to methodically debunk their arguments by picking them apart one by one which is not that difficult to do as most of their ‘enlightened’ opinions are ideological drivel without any basis in reality. Counter arguments that are based on factual information cannot be refuted and when they are interspersed with a dose of good old dry sarcasm they tend to have a very powerful effect.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen is a typical Norwegian academic who has for the last couple of decades worked tirelessly to make sure that Norway doesn’t miss out on the ‘multiethnic dream’. He holds a high position within the tiny narrow-minded academic milieu in Norway and he is by many considered to be an important mentor for the left. Despite his slightly pompous and overbearing personality he was clearly shaken when an Iranian immigrant recently accused him in an newspaper op-ed of having ideologically provided ABB with enough ‘mental ammunition’ to commit the atrocities in Norway on July 22, 2011 by making the following statement:

‘Now it’s important to deconstruct the majority and do it so thoroughly so that it can never be referred to as a majority again’.

Following this verbal ‘broadside’ which the left leaning academia in Norway where up in arms about, Mr Eriksen petulantly stated that he didn’t feel like continuing with his research. Maybe it was uncalled for but one should keep in mind that Thomas Hylland Eriksen himself had no qualms about making similar accusations against people who were just as innocent as him in the time after the attacks.

What it all boils down to is that an offensive approach will always be the best form of defence. One should never give the left an inch when engaging them in debates; never give them a reason to believe that they have the upper hand mentally or ideologically. Nor should one feel guilty about having an independent and controversial opinion. So what if the people on the left don’t like it, is it their responsibility to determine what constitute correct political speech?

In my opinion no one has been more successful in exposing and countering the dirty tactics of the left than former leader of the progress party (FrP) in Norway, Carl I Hagen. He never held back and he always spoke his mind. He had an almost uncanny ability to make those TV journalists who clearly despised him and who constantly questioned him for his controversial political views look like ignorant and ill prepared little school children. I personally believe that Carl I Hagen and the FrP are one of the reasons why the intellectual climate in Norway today is so different to that of Sweden where it is unthinkable to publicly oppose or criticize multiculturalism. It is important to realize that the only way to topple political correctness and hopefully reign in the out of control horse which is multiculturalism, is to reject its unwritten rules, and that means not being afraid of speaking one’s mind whether the subject is gun control, gay marriages, Islam or multiculturalism.

Maybe it’s time to get up off the couch?

Also published at Gates of Vienna

It’s not really worth writing too much about yesterday’s anti-Islamic rally in Oslo organized by the NDL and SIOE. As predicted, the event only attracted around 40-50 individuals, most of them members of the two organizations. The rally could just as easily have been held at the headquarters of the NDL as a “members only” event.

Rune Hauge, the leader of the NDL, was correct when he stated in an interview earlier this year that Norwegians who are critical of Islam need to get up off the couch and become more actively involved in the fight against this evil ideology. It’s no good limiting oneself to writing indignant post and comments on the Internet. Sure, writing on the web has an impact, but at some point people need to get off their bums and actually start doing some constructive organizational work and make their voices heard, and demonstrating in a public area is a good start.

If ten thousand people had showed up at the event in Oslo on Saturday, and at similar events across the country in the future, the authorities and the MSM wouldn’t be able to simply brush them off any longer as ‘radical loons’ without public support. I’m pretty confident that there are hundreds of thousands of Norwegians who share the concerns of the NDL and SIOE, but they are reluctant to demonstrate and take part in these types of rallies. The threat of violence will always hang over such events as an invisible glove, and, yes, it could have negative repercussions for some people’s careers, but that’s just the way it is.

How do people expect to stop the spread of Islam in Norway in the future if they’re not even willing to stand up to this undemocratic ideology today? Norwegian politicians are most definitely not going to stop it; they are the ones who got us in this mess in the first place by opening the doors for it. Unfortunately, the responsibility for halting the tidal wave of Islam falls upon the people who oppose it. It is as simple as that, and subsequently those people who at a great personal cost are willing to stand up as an example for others to follow should be commended and praised. They certainly shouldn’t be ridiculed and mocked, especially not by other Norwegians who are equally critical of this ideology, but who limit themselves in venting their frustration about Islam online.

I had a look at Document.no yesterday and I was saddened to see the editor of the website, Hans Rustad, belittling and lecturing those who dare to stick their necks out and stand up for something they believe in. These are principles that should be applauded, not derided. It is especially sad because Document.no is one of the biggest Islam-critical websites in Norway, and people listen to Hans Rustad.

I’ve translated some of Rustad’s poisonous remarks below:

"When reading and watching NRK’s reports on the Norwegian Defense League and Stop The Islamisation of Europe, one is almost overcome by a claustrophobic anxiety. It is difficult to distinguish between NRK’s political grip and the activists’ simplicity. It takes two to tango."

"But the activists are playing the cards that they have been dealt as effectively as possible. To demonstrate in a public area, and one where there is a large immigrant population, is a hopeless undertaking. In theory, NDL leader Rune Hauge’s idea to show that Grønland is also part of Norway has some validity. But one cannot ignore the consequences: that it is going to provoke the residents of the area and that opposing forces will mobilize. And among those opposing forces are people who feel that they have every right to resort to violence."

"If the activists are serious about their commitment then they have to listen to the wishes of the people. People don’t accept confrontations provided that there is a specific issue that is of such importance that one simply can’t keep quiet about it. The fact that people failed to support them on Saturday in Grønland does not mean people don’t take these issues seriously. You don’t get people involved by scaring them away."

I would venture that Islam definitely qualifies as a ‘specific issue’ that has to be opposed in the most rigorous manner even if that includes the likelihood of getting physically attacked, because rest assured the rise of Islam in Norway will eventually result in violence and brutality, and it will be directed at those who are too cowardly to oppose it today, and their offspring. There’s no need to try to sugar-coat the inevitable.

Perhaps it would be a better idea, if Document.no and Hans Rustad are so concerned about the NDL/SIOE’s lack of oral skills and inadequacies in presenting views on national TV, to encourage people with those skills to join these organizations and not drive people away from them.

On previous occasions Hans Rustad has condescendingly described members of the EDL as unemployed hooligan thugs who are only interested in fighting and drinking. Is that also how he sees the people of the NDL and SIOE?

Are they not educated enough for him?

It would be even better if Rustad and the milieu around Document.no started organizing similar rallies across Oslo — and the rest of the country for that matter — on their own terms of course, and began getting the masses more involved in this fight. It’s no good criticising and belittling those who actually have taken the leap and who are willing to give it a go. Demonizing and ridiculing those who have the guts to stand up to Islam only proves that one is a useful idiot for the radical Left, who must be rubbing their hands in joy when they see the biggest Islam-critical website in Norway fronting their views in this particular matter.

Sven Egil Omdal: The Norwegian media’s answer to Inspector Clouseau

Also published at Gates of Vienna

It is amazing to contemplate the viciousness and pure evil that the intellectual elites in Norway are capable of exhibiting whenever someone dares to step out of line and break the unwritten rules.

Even now, a year and a half after the worst terrorist attacks in Norwegian history, they still haven’t come to terms with the fact that the person who carried out the atrocities and carries the sole responsibility for it is locked up in a nice cosy Norwegian prison cell. That the terrorist has been tried and convicted is to them completely irrelevant; they still want Fjordman’s head on a platter, regardless of the fact the he is innocent and had absolutely nothing to with the terrorist attacks.

The righteous ones are determined to keep at it until they succeed, and they are not showing any signs of slowing down. The vicious attacks have been unrelenting and the latest nasty hit piece which is just one of several dozens is penned by Sven Egil Omdal who is a journalist working for Stavanger Aftenblad. Yesterday Omdal wrote a particularly nasty one that is so thoroughly vile and filled with false accusations and hatred that it is even horrid by Norwegian standards — and that says a lot.

Omdal is virtually unknown outside of Norway, and that is probably one of the reasons that prompted him to carry out a virtual character assassination of Fjordman. Unlike Fjordman, who has managed to achieve international fame and recognition in a relative short period of time, Omdal has never managed to escape the tiny journalistic fishbowl which is the Norwegian media and make a name for himself abroad. Given Omdal’s huge ego, this must have been very hard for him to accept.

So let’s take a closer look at the journalist Sven Egil Omdal, the man who is working so hard to smear Fjordman and link him to the worst terrorist attacks on Norwegian soil in modern times…

For those who don’t know, Sven Egil Omdal is the Norwegian media’s answer to Inspector Clouseau. He’s a pompous little so-and-so who sees himself as the Sherlock Holmes of the journalistic world and believes that everything that comes out of his mouth is pure unadulterated nuggets of wisdom. And, like most people with a super-inflated ego, he doesn’t like to be corrected or criticized, so it must have been unbearable for him when Fjordman exposed him as the self-important impostor that he really is, in an article at FrontPage Mag a couple of months ago. In fact, I’m confident that that particular article is the main reason for Omdal’s latest hit piece. For Svein Egil Omdal, it’s payback time, and it’s personal.

Omdal’s self-image must have taken a big hit when Fjordman exposed him as an intellectual lightweight on an international news site written in English for the entire world to see. It must have hurt pretty badly, because Omdal practically broke every single rules of the Norwegian media code of ethics when he wrote the nasty article about Fjordman — which is hard to believe, considering that Omdal was actually tasked with overseeing and enforcing these ethics only a few years ago. The recent release of a new book on the European extreme right which included a chapter about Fjordman was all that Omdal needed to get his revenge, and he grabbed the opportunity with both hands.

Given Omdal’s overbearing animosity towards Fjordman, this may sound strange, but I suspect that Omdal secretly wishes that he was the Norwegian Left’s version of Fjordman, and that he was able to gain the recognition that comes with such a status.

I believe that Omdal dreams about being asked to write witty guest-essays for Huffington Post and receiving invitations to appear on the John Stewart Show and bask in his own self importance. But, unfortunately for Omdal, he simply hasn’t got the talent and is thus limited to writing for a regional newspaper with a very limited readership based in a tiny little Norwegian provincial city. Most of the locals who read his pretentious op-eds and editorial — which I’m sure he has spent many a night fine polishing until they are exactly right — simply think he’s a sorry nobody with an inflated ego. I haven’t encountered a single op-ed written by him for Aftenbladet where at least half of the comments haven’t been scornful, derisive and of a mocking nature. I actually posted a lengthy sarcastic comment on a piece where he sulked over the Osama assassination. My comment was initially published, but when I logged on the following day all comments had been removed. I suppose Svein Egil didn’t like the feedback he was receiving.

Another one of Omdal’s problems, and this is a major one, is that he honestly believes that he is morally superior and smarter than the people around him. Maybe that’s why he decided to write an op-ed in Aftenbladet in 2007 in which he suggested that the Norwegian authorities might want to look more closely into who was behind the 9/11 attacks in NYC. As Omdal so shrewdly concluded at the end of his op-ed: what if Bush was behind the attacks and not Osama bin Laden?

I wouldn’t be surprised if Omdal secretly believes that 9/11 was an inside job. He became very upset when US Navy Seals eliminated Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011. This prompted Omdal to write an editorial in which he accused the US of engaging in criminal activities by not bringing the ‘virtuous’ Bin Laden back to the US to stand trial. Omdal’s message to the US was that even a man like bin Laden has human rights.

And that’s the way the brain of Sven Egil Omdal — the Norwegian media’s answer to Inspector Clouseau — works. In his world anything that can be construed as support for the right to defend oneself becomes ‘incitement to violence’. The repatriation of Muslims who are unwilling to embrace Western values becomes ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘holocaust’ all rolled into to one. Strangely enough, Omdal labels those Norwegians who are being displaced and ethnically cleansed by non-Western immigrants from certain urban neighbourhoods and dare to say so as ‘racists’ and ‘fascists’, but at the same time he praises those that are responsible for this displacement, which of course is Inspector Clouseau logic — or Sven Egil Omdal logic, if you prefer.

 

Vidar Enebakk, science historian or modern-day Torquemada?

Also published on Gates of Vienna

 

Following the tragic events of July 22 last year, many conservatives in Norway have been subjected to a Norwegian version of the Spanish inquisition in which prominent public figures from the political and cultural establishments have been allowed to pontificate and condemn those that they perceive to be in cahoots with the mentally deranged terrorist Anders Behring Breivik.

The inquisition has been a long, dirty drawn-out public affair on which accusations have been made with a fiendish fervour. For those on the receiving end, it must have be an absolute nightmare, especially when considering the viciousness and poorly disguised hatred that seem to fuel some of the accusers. These modern-day inquisitors have many names, and there are probably many reasons why they have decided to take on the role of judge, jury and executioner, but in this article I will only focus on one of these agents of orthodoxy, as ultimately they are really one and the same and speaking with a collective voice. Their arguments and accusations all seem to have been taken from the same poorly written manuscript.

Vidar Enebakk is one of these inquisitors. He is a 41-year-old science historian who has worked tirelessly trying to convince a traumatized nation that the essayist and author Fjordman shares a moral responsibility for the murders of 77 innocent people carried out in Oslo and on Utøya on July 22, 2011. One would expect that Enebakk — who has been trying to implicate Fjordman in these grizzly deeds for sixteen months now by writing a staggering 144 lengthy comments on a major Norwegian online discussion forum and co-authoring a book in which he puts the moral blame on Fjordman for the worst-ever terror attacks on Norwegian soil — would have solid evidence to back up his pernicious allegations, and in particular given that we know Enebakk himself is a scientist. But unfortunately for Enebakk, his accusations are just empty shells.

The problem with Enebakk’s personal crusade against Fjordman is that the evidence he uses simply doesn’t support his allegations. What Enebakk is doing, and I am going to use a Norwegian phrase here, is trying to make soup out of carpentry nails. Enebakk and all the other Norwegian and international inquisitors are acutely aware that Fjordman was acquitted of any wrongdoing by the Norwegian courts and the Norwegian police pretty much from the get-go. Enebakk realizes that he therefore can’t accuse Fjordman of being an actual accomplice in the attacks, but he has solved this tricky conundrum by instead accusing Fjordman of being morally responsible for the attacks. It’s a way for him and others to circumvent and ignore the fact that Fjordman had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks or the terrorist, and still enable him and others to keep attacking Fjordman without having to prove any tangible connections between the two. Enebakk and his allies want to convict Fjordman without having to worry about such pesky things as due process and proper evidence.

There is of course no such term as moral guilt in modern jurisprudence. In a court of law a defendant is either guilty or not guilty, meaning that the law cannot allow that a person be acquitted in a criminal court case because of lack of evidence, and then receive a conviction of moral responsibility for the same crime.

If someone is acquitted in a court of law of, say, rape, then that person can legally sue anyone who in the lead-up to and after the court case has publicly stated that the accused is a rapist. That is law at its most basic level, and it should be pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, however, this message seems to have eluded Enebakk and his cohorts, as this is exactly the type of activities that they are engaging in.

I’m surprised that a scientist like Enebakk doesn’t seem capable of grasping this simple fact, but maybe deep-down he does. Enebakk should be aware that he could easily be sued for defamation and slander based on the hundreds of incriminating and highly offensive statements he has published about Fjordman — and that goes for everyone else that has slandered Fjordman online and in the press.

So we have established that there is no such thing as moral guilt in modern law, although I’m sure it’s a term that Stalin would have appreciated very much. I’m also convinced that Vidar Enebakk would have had a brilliant career in the Soviet legal system if he had been around at the time. The logical fallacy of Enebakk’s philosophy is that a person cannot be innocent and guilty at the same time. But I can see that this is a possibility in Enebakk’s own universe; he seems to operate with a completely different set of rules than the rest of us.

Vidar Enebakk is like a rabid dog chasing a bone. He just will not stop or slow down. He’s running on autopilot. He has his victim locked in his sights, and he can smell blood.

Furthermore, I maintain that Enebakk is a nasty character. How else would one describe a person who has no moral qualms about accusing an innocent individual of being complicit in the most heinous criminal act committed in Norway in modern history? What type of person would claim that: “Hey, I’m not saying that you participated in the crime; I’m merely saying that in moral terms you are guilty of killing 77 young people who were butchered in the most horrific manner possible on an island that they had no opportunity of escaping from — but no hard feelings, eh?”

To claim that someone who has been proven by the courts to be innocent, who hasn’t done anything to aid and abet the perpetrator in the initial planning stage nor on the actual day of the attack, was somehow with the deranged perpetrator in spirit when the perpetrator fired his bullets into the heads and hearts of his young victims and watched them die by the dozens on the shoreline of Utøya, is absolutely disgusting and sickening. I cannot understand how such a person can bear to look at himself in the mirror. Only a truly twisted and vicious person would accuse someone else of such a horrible thing.

In his defence I would have to say that I don’t believe that Enebakk has thoroughly grasped the gruesome logic of his accusations. But if I’m incorrect in my assumption, and he actually does know what he’s doing, then there is definitely something wrong inside his head. Has Enebakk ever thought about how it affects a person to be accused of having contributed to the taking of 77 lives? Most people would go to great lengths just to clear their name for some minor infraction such as shoplifting if they felt that they had been wrongfully accused. How does Enebakk think it feels like to be accused of killing 77 innocent people? What does he think it feels like for Fjordman’s family and close friends? Has Enebakk no mental boundaries whatsoever? Is he so mentally corrupt that he doesn’t have a single decent bone left in his body?

Let’s take a look at the arguments that Enebakk seem to think are so rock-solid that there can be absolutely no doubt about Fjordman’s moral guilt. Let’s examine the logic behind his accusations. Is it possible to discern the sharp logic behind the thought process that prompted the scientist to reach the conclusion that Fjordman is actively encouraging people to commit violence?

Enebakk’s main justifications for incriminating Fjordman are as follows:

As posted at Verdidebatt.no August 14 2012:

“Both Fjordman and Breivik directly advocate arming the populations — Breivik by including the last of this quote by Fjordman in his compendium (Chapter 2.58):

“In Praise of the First and Second Amendments” (The Brussels Journal 20. July 2006):

“If their governments are no longer capable of protecting them and their freedom of speech, Europeans may have to arm themselves to do this on their own.”

“Civil War in Sweden?” (Gates of Vienna 2. July 2008):

“In general, if you live in any Western European country, you should arm yourself very soon, one way or the other.”

“Will Holland Survive the 21st Century” (Gates of Vienna 9. September 2009):

“My advice to Westerners in general is to arm themselves immediately, first of all mentally with knowledge of the enemy and pride in their own culture and heritage, but also physically with guns and the skills to use them.”

Posted at Verdidebatt.no August 5 2012:

"It isn’t Fjordman’s criticism of Islam that is the problem, but rather his repeated calls for arming the population and to use violence. The problem is not that he is against Islam or favors deportation, but his rejection of our democratic system and the support of violence against political leaders."

As we can see from the above quotes, Enebakk bases his arguments on Fjordman’s defence of the Second Amendment of the American Constitution, which is an absolutely remarkable display of logic. I am also a supporter of the Second Amendment; does that mean that I’m also responsible for the Utøya massacre? It’s amazing that a scientist can justify his arguments on such preposterous and highly illogical basis.

Maintaining that people have a right to defend themselves doesn’t mean supporting the idea that people have the right to indiscriminately start killing innocent humans on a tiny Norwegian island. Being positive towards a principle doesn’t mean that one is an accomplice to a crime if someone decides to carry out a criminal act and then justify this act with a reference to said principle.

Suggesting that people should arm themselves in order to protect themselves if civil unrest breaks out isn’t advocating or condoning violence; it is common sense. It’s also an argument which is espoused by nations and armies all over the world. No one would in their right mind claim that supporting the idea of having a national army is the same as being a supporter of war — unless, of course, you’re using the same logic as Enebakk.

If Enebakk believes that Islamophobia is a despicable act, is he then ideologically responsibility for the murders of Islamophobes in the Muslim world?

Or what about vocal opponents of high taxes — are they guilty of ideologically influencing tax evaders?

Or what about pro-gun Americans, do they share moral responsibility for every single gun crime committed in America, solely on the basis of their opinions?

Enebakk has also stated that he believes that Fjordman is morally guilty because Breivik republished 45 of Fjordman’s essays in his manifesto:

As posted at Verdidebatt.no June 13 2012

Then I would suggest that in addition to Fjordman’s 45 republished essays in Breivik’s manifesto, that you take a look at page 1405 one more time. Here it is stated explicitly that Fjordman is Breivik’s favorite writer and that, according to Breivik, they both share the same view of the world, but that Breivik alone takes the leap from attitudes to actions: “Our views are quite similar with the exception that I’m an actual armed resistance fighter.”

Breivik’s mother pointed out the same thing in police interrogations: “Fjordman was number one for Anders.”

How do you then justify your claim that Fjordman simply hasn’t inspired Breivik? Who else in the manifest do you think inspired Breivik if Fjordman is as innocent as you suggest?

It’s amazing to see a scientist who so readily uses guilt by association in an attempt to booster his own arguments. What Enebakk is doing is implicating and accusing Fjordman based on something that Breivik has done and which Fjordman had no knowledge of. The “reasoning” behind such remarkable logic is equivalent of a modern day Kafkaesque process in which the defendant has no possible way of clearing his name, as all the normal principles of defence have been taken away from him.

Enebakk places a big responsibility on ytringsansvar, ‘decorum’, and accuses others of ideologically contributing to crimes by the mere utterance of words that have no relations to the crime, but then again Enebakk is also oblivious to the fact that if we apply his twisted logic, his own words also have consequences.

How would Enebakk feel if any harm ever came to Fjordman as a result of his personal crusade against him? Would he be willing to admit any guilt?

Many of the inquisitors in Norway have also made a big point about the terms “quisling” and “traitor” being used by Fjordman and others in the Counterjihad community to describe those responsible for the disastrous mess that the West is currently in. Many of them are so outraged by this that they jump to the conclusion that the traitors in question would be dealt with in the same swift manner that Breivik used when he killed all those youths on Utøya. But what they fail to realize is that Quisling and all the other traitors in Norway were tried in a court of law, and that they had their sentences meted out only after lawful convictions were reached. The same thing is true with the Nuremberg trials.

A nation is certainly entitles to rid itself of its traitors and tyrants. It’s considered a noble goal throughout the world, and it is something that Norway has recently helped Libya, Afghanistan and Egypt to achieve.

Are Norwegian authorities therefore morally responsible for the massacres in Norway? Well according to Enebakk’s brilliant logic, they are.