Anti-Islamization Fjordman Fjordman Essay Fjordman Report



This is an essay by Fjordman, Are Critics of Islam the Nazis of Our Time? The Norwegian version was published a half an hour ago. KGS

Are Critics of Islam the Nazis of Our Time?

Editor’s note: The following article was a response to a piece in Aftenposten that likened Fjordman to a Nazi. The paper denied him his statutory “right of reply”, so he is publishing his prepared response here and at other online locations instead.

The Norwegian version of this article was published previously. Many thanks to our Norwegian correspondent NA for translating it into English.

We encourage as many blogs as possible to mirror these posts. Our goal is for more people to read this article than if it had been published in Aftenposten, as Fjordman originally intended. The Norwegian MSM will discover that they no longer control the flow of information to the public. We will demonstrate that the “new media” can do a better job of disseminating news than the newspapers can.

Here follows the translated text of an essay that the newspaper Aftenposten has now refused to publish. According to the ethical guidelines of the Norwegian Press Association, one has the right to reply to accusations put forward about oneself in the press. Aftenposten, a few days before I went public with my real name, posted a notorious article about “Islamophobes” such as Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or and myself (Fjordman) where we were presented as the new wave of right-wing extremism. The photos in the print edition were particularly nasty, where I was put next to Vidkun Quisling, Anders Behring Breivik and several neo-Nazis who are convicted murderers. I think they owe me for that. They were very close to a libel suit back then.

I sent them this essay a few days ago (as Peder Jensen, of course) for review. They rejected it. I’m not going to claim that it is the best text I have ever written, but I think it is at least as well-written, well-researched and logically coherent as the countless mediocre and easily-forgotten essays that very same newspaper has published about racist white Islamophobes and right-wing extremists.

I was first told that the text didn’t match the title. I think it does. I linked it to the Nazi sympathies of Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and showed how the authorities and the mainstream media have appeased the real Nazis of our time. However, they wanted me to remove the second part. I refused, and argued that the examples I had used were relevant. The same journalist then changed tactics and stated that my arguments were not new and had been used before. I suppose that means that Aftenposten will reject all future essays about Islamophobia or xenophobia, since most people have heard those arguments hundreds of times before, if not more. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.

Aftenposten asked me to remove the reference to my upcoming book The Curious Civilization from the text because this could be seen as a commercial of some kind. I admit that was indeed part of the reason why I put it there. That is the one change that I would have been willing to make to the text, to cut out that particular reference. Also note that they didn’t dispute a single factual claim that I wrote in the essay. I can easily document all of them.

The bottom line is that one has the “right to reply”, but apparently only as long as the journalists agree with your reply, which isn’t very helpful. I can accept being rejected if I simply don’t write well enough. I am not claiming that every single text I write is a masterpiece. Perhaps this one isn’t. But I cannot live with being turned down because of ideological censorship, and will not rewrite an essay to please those doing so. Perhaps I am wrong, but I personally sense an element of that motive here. If that is indeed the case then I will not accept it. That is why I started blogging in the first place. I therefore publish the text here to highlight censorship in the press.

Are Critics of Islam the Nazis of Our Time?

by Peder Jensen, also known as the writer Fjordman on the Internet

On the 30th of July of this year, Aftenposten printed the article “They are the third wave,” in which they harassed people such as Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer and myself. The illustrations in the printed edition were particularly appalling. One was shown a picture of Bat Ye’or, and on the next page a picture of the convicted Nazi traitor Vidkun Quisling. This is extremely tactless, especially considering that the Nazis were responsible for the genocide of about six million Jews and the fact that Bat Ye’or is Jewish. Besides, Aftenposten‘s own historical relationship with the Nazis is far from pretty.

The message that is now being presented in the mass media after the atrocities committed by Anders Behring Breivik is that critics of Islam like myself are the Nazis of our time. But is this true? The Nazis were national Socialists, even though many people would now like us to forget the second part of their ideology. I have personally never heard of a totalitarian movement that could not also be partially described as Socialist. Is it a coincidence that a disproportionate number of Western converts to Islam are neo-Nazis or Marxists? Do they share a common totalitarian DNA?

In 2008, Marte Michelet from Dagbladet startlingly enough made common cause with Islamic organizations, Communists and neo-Nazis in favour of a new, large mosque in Cologne. German neo-Nazis regard Islamic organizations as allies in the struggle against “Jewish-Zionist dominance.” This did not lead to critical remarks from other media in Norway. There is more inbreeding in the Norwegian press than amongst Pakistani cousins.

As I mention in my upcoming book on European culture, The Curious Civilization, Muslims have a choice between Mozart and Hitler, and often choose Hitler of their own free will. In sharp contrast to the East Asian passion for European Classical music, Adolf Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf was number two on the bestseller list in the allegedly moderate NATO member state Turkey as late as in 2005. The book is still popular in parts of the Arab world.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928, grew in parallel with the Nazi movement in Europe and was inspired by this in addition to Islam. Their leader Mahdi Akef has reassured his followers that Jihad “will smash Western civilization and replace it with Islam, which will dominate the world.” Akef stated in 2007 that if Muslims are not able to achieve this in the near future they are “obliged to continue Jihad [holy war to expand Islamic global rule], which will lead to the collapse of Western civilization.”

The Islamic Council of Norway, which is being funded by native Norwegian taxpayers, receives guidance from the European Council for Fatwa and Research about issues such as whether or not to support the death penalty for homosexuals. The Council is led by the powerful Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qaradawi, who supports marriage with underage children, has openly boasted that Muslims will conquer Europe, spoken in positive terms of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, and suggested that the next mass murder of Jews will come at the hands of Muslims. As Walid al-Kubaisi points out, the Brotherhood has a big influence in many countries, the West included. Representatives of Jonas Gahr Støre’s Foreign Ministry have met members of the Muslim Brotherhood for talks in Oslo.

In 2007 under the government of Jens Stoltenberg, Norway was the only Western country to recognize the Palestinian government that was then led by Hamas. The ideology of Hamas has many similarities with Nazism. This move was widely applauded by the Norwegian press at the time. People within the governing parties and the political Left wanted to support such a government financially, which would imply that Norwegian taxpayers had to fund terrorists.

In September 2011 the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) asked the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard to leave Norway because they feared that an assassination attempt would be made against him. According to Islamic sources, critics of Mohammed were killed by his followers. Given that his personal example, or Sunna, which along with the Koran constitutes the teachings of Islam, this remains a valid principle to this day. Those who want to kill Theo van Gogh or Geert Wilders are therefore acting in full compliance with traditional Islamic theology.

This is described in Halvor Tjønn’s surprisingly realistic Norwegian biography of Mohammed. Ibn Warraq, author of the book Why I Am Not a Muslim, is a man who was born in Pakistan but has to write under a pseudonym in order to avoid the death penalty for apostasy. Islam is the only religion on Earth that prescribes death to those who criticize or leave it.

Thomas Seltzer, a host on NRK3, has presented a caricature of me as a multi-handicapped writer in a wheelchair. I presume that this makes me the Norwegian equivalent of Stephen Hawking, which I take as a compliment. Alternatively, one could imagine it to be an insinuation that people in wheelchairs are drivelling fools, which is not particularly tasteful.

The difference between a humorist and a bully is that a true humorist makes fun of the powerful, not the weak. Seltzer can ridicule people like me because he knows that we will not assault him, but he does not dare to show a drooling Yusuf al-Qaradawi in a wheelchair explaining to Muslims that paedophilia is OK. By so doing he has himself indirectly admitted who the real successors to the Nazis in our time actually are. I can inform him that genuine neo-Nazis do not like me at all and have circulated rumours on the Internet for years about me being an Israeli agent because of my clear pro-Israeli line.

Some people might assert that I, who stretch the boundaries of freedom of speech, should put up with as much. Perhaps. The difference is that citizens do not have to pay for my writings. Through the TV license they have to pay for what is broadcast on NRK, whether they want to or not. In an age when a heavily left-leaning press looks like as a wall-to-wall carpet of Multicultural propaganda, one has to ask why. Hundreds of thousands of Norwegians are fed up with the fact that those who are deeply concerned for the future of their children because of a mass immigration that is unprecedented in human history are harassed by their own press corps and labelled as extremists, racists and Nazis.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has spoken in favour of more openness and democracy after Breivik. One of the most important things one could do to get a democratic debate going in Norway is to remove press subsidies and to abolish NRK in its present form. The question is whether the Labour Party is willing to do this as long as NRK constitutes an integral part of the Left’s grip on power.

23 Responses

  1. The Norwegian elites are driving patriotic Norwegians to hate their own government because of it’s abandonment of traditional Norwegian values in favour of alien Islamic ones. If they don’t listen to men like fjordman then there will be many more Brieviks in the future as the ruling party is seen more and more as traitors funding and supporting Islamic terrorists, rejecting Christian principles while championing Islamic ones and supporting Europes enermies while abandoning her friends.

    Fjordman will one day be considered a visionary; saving our civilization from the barbarians.

  2. My book, “Satan’s Trinity: Hitler, Stalin & Muhammad,” will be available within the month and one may pre-order at For the first time in history “HSM” appear together on a book cover. The idea behind the book is to make headway against the ludicrous idea that Muhammad should be conjoined with any religious leader/founder. Once this comparison, driven by actual names, has been made then it must be attacked. Once the attack has been launched then the attackers will be forced to defend their attack. Since the attack is indefensible then the “religion” Muhammad (if he existed) founded will begin to be viewed as the scam it is. This book has been written under the principle of KISS. Thank you for your time…….C”H”Martel

  3. The more and more this continues makes me believe that it could represent a kind of Nazi conspiracy whereby they would gradually gain positions of power in Europe with the help of their Islamic allies. Many German (and European) post-war leftists parties were founded by “ex-Nazis,” could the lefts vicious hatred of Israel be part of this Nazi plan? More research needs to be done but we do know most Fugative Nazis found refuge in Arab countries like Egypt and Syria where they became influential advisors to Arab governments. Some even converted to Islam. Could their “revenge” be what we see taking place; eg the kafkaesque world presented by European media, government and academia in which victims (Israel, Europeans) and perpetrators (Islamic terrorists) are portrayed precisely opposite so Israels defense against Islamic fascism is portrayed as unjustified?

    Is Eurabia only the tip of the iceberg?

  4. This is exactly what is happening to Fjordman, Spencer and others who defend freedom of thought and religion, womens rights, minority rights, democracy and western liberal values etc against islamism but who are described as the fascists. All the while while Islamists use our democracy against us to dig away at our democracy with creeping sharia eg polytheism, segregated sports in schools and pools, Islamic prayer in school, sharia divorce laws, mandatory Hallah food, Christmas being banned in workplaces, ham banned from school cafeterias etc etc

    There have been dozens of “dry run” terrorist operations on planes. Dozens of Islamic terrorist plots foiled, dozens of instances of muslim nuclear scientists working in western plants arrested for giving secrets to Iran etc but no one is joining the dots, there are no mainstream media exposes about these issues, the msm simply is not interested.

  5. Grassroots are fed up and the grassroots drive America.

  6. Reading the actual article in Norwegian, and also reading the response in Norwegian, I do not necessarily think the response fulfilled the requirements of a reply on an attack. The ethical guideline says you have the right to reply on an attack, the reply has to be of reasonable length, stick to the issue at hand and has a decent tone. The reply cannot be of an editorial, polemic nature.

    I found this reply not adressing the actual statement made in the article, but just listing the views of Fjordmann. Another big problem is that the reply states that “The message that is now being presented in the mass media after the atrocities committed by Anders Behring Breivik is that critics of Islam like myself are the Nazis of our time. ” . This is not true for this article. The article actually says that most people critical of islam is far removed from the neo nazi. They do not share the same views, The article also discusses the problem that people with critical statements and worries often are faced with being called an “islamofobe” while they might have valid points that are not politically correct… It discusses the line between being a radical and an extremist, and I do not get any impression that they put Fjordmann in the extremist box.

    The article actually mentions his name twice – once saying that he was named in Breivik’s manifesto and once mentioning the website Gates of Vienna which is “amongst other places where Fjordmann has his arena and his public”. In the reply, none of these issues are adressed. Maybe the reply would have been accepted had it argued that rightwing radical was not the right term for these groups, or that Gates of Vienna was not somewhere he was active as this would be directly related to the “attacks” in the paper. I might be wrong here, but I think a reply should contain a reference to statements about you that you feel are wrong, and not just an essay with your views on the wider subject?

    I felt this was important to mention, as there might be many people reading who can’t read the initial article in Aftenposten and therefore does not get the full story. (Maybe an English translation of the full Aftenposten article will be here soon?:) )

  7. Let me see.

    Once upon a time a scientist posited that smoking could lead to thousands of deaths. The media, government and cigarette manufacturers vilified the scientist. They were all making huge amounts of money after all – from the manufacture, advertising and tax revenue on cigarettes. In the fullness of time, deaths through cigarette smoking started to climb. So what did the slimeballs do? They blamed the scientists for creating the conditions that led to the deaths. Their quite “rational” argument was, that if the scientist had not pointed the finger at cigarettes, no one would have known, and all would be alright.

    Fjordman just happens to be the social thinker who sees the inevitable consequence of government policy.

    I’m certain that in the fullness of time, history will judge Fjordman as a visionary and saviour. ( Provided of course that the West survives the Islam encounter, and is not betrayed by the ruling class elite).

    1. I’m afraid the west won’t survive the islam encounter. They are too far up the burqa already.

  8. Mari is quite wrong and draws a long bow in order to justify giving Fjordman no right of reply. Of course his article is about his views because this is what he’s being attacked for.

    Ultra nationalists like Breivik will be attracted to many of Fjordman’s views but this does not mean Fjordman supports Breivik anymore than J.D. Salinger supported Mark David Chapman murdering John Lennon. It is simply that main stream politicians are ignoring the very real concerns of many citizens and Breivik’s ultimate point was that the Norwegian government justified the use of violence for political gain by its support of Hamas and Hezballah; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    There are a number of unaddressed issues in the manifesto of people like Mari in terms of the Breivik issue;

    1. Why is Fjordman’s writings automatically responsible for the actions of Breivik but the Koran is never responsible for the violent actions of Muslims (according to the elite)?

    2. Why is Breivik constantly called a “Christian fundamentalist” when his writings show he was anti-Christian?

    The answers are of course that if there had been 20,000 terror attacks by Fjordmans supporters in the last 10 years he clearly would have a case to answer just as the Koran HAS caused almost 20,000 terror attacks since 911 and that the left needs a “christian” terrorist in order to justify there culturally relativist conclusion that Islam is a “religion of peace” and extremists are really only a “tiny minority” even though all survery date shows extremists make up at least 40% of the Muslim world (eg supporters of violent Jihad, Sharia law etc).

    1. I adressed the fact that as a right of reply this article was not necessarily well phrased and consisted of some statements that were simply not true. Noone in this article has said that “Fjordman’s writings automatically responsible for the actions of Breivik” – at least I did not see it, feel free to quote the article with regard to this? In the article Fjordmann is actually not attacked for his views – he is mentioned as holding critical views and it is said that he was mentioned in Breivik’s manifesto. Noone is saying that people mentioned in this manifesto are responsible for a crazy mans actions. . At least I am not saying this, and the article is not saying this. There is only one man responsible – we all need to take responsibilty for our own actions. Fjordmann might be right in many of his observations, this does not mean his respond qualifies legally as a response to the article in question. A link to Dagbladet (posted by KGS above) is also not relevant to this, as Fjordmann was replying to an article in Aftenposten, not to the general views of Norwegian media.

      1. I find it irrelevant, the tone and mood has been set by repeated articles ever since Fjordman became an item. Aftenposten has printed an umpteenth number of articles since then which are now addressed by Jensen. Though doth protest too much.

      2. You’re ignoring our basic point Mari. This article is part of a campaign by the entire mainstream press to badmouth Fjordman, it cannot be viewed in isolation. He has not been allowed the right of reply in any mainstream publication in Norway. Whether you like it or not he is a highly influencial writer with many thousands, possibly millions, of supporters around the world. The website “Jihadwatch” Fjordman writes for is rated one of the most popular political blogs in the World by Techorati. Fjordman has massive influence despite your belief he should be silenced.

        You’re also missing the many other points e.g. that Norwegian mainstream media is a monolithic leftwing, culturally relativist, politically correct, marxist, apologist for Islamofascist, anti-Israel elite that does not allow real debate. This is why blogs like this one are so popular. Your whole argument is not about the substance of Fjordman’s views but about his lack to the right to a voice. You are censoring one side of the debate. You are therefore exhibiting one major element of fascism eg support for a ban on free speech.

        The MSN media can go on producing propaganda in support of Hamas and Hezballah, on the beauty of Sharia law etc for another 100 years but this will not stop the Islamic Jihad and it will not stem the increasing cynicism in many parts of Norwegian and Western society about ruling elite; its message and policies.

        The Labour party camp Breivik attacked had only the day before hosted the terrorist group Fatah Youth.

        Fatah is the group which recently murdered the Fogel family including decapitating a baby. Fatah is behind many Suicide bombings of Israeli civilians. The Camp also has connections to Hamas and Hezballah.

        Mari, When the Labour party supports terrorism for political purposes against Israeli civilians then how can it have any moral authority to condemn terrorism for political purposes in Norway? Breivik didn’t attack random civilians but “card carrying” supporters of Islamic terrorism groups. In my opinion, while not a hero (UNLIKE THE LABOUR PARTY I DO NOT CONDONE TERROISM!), Breivik is an EVIL genius for shedding light on this issue in such a dramatic way. Had he attacked Muslims, as we might have expected of an ubernationalist, he would not have made such a strong political point about the hypocrisy of the European left.

  9. The author says that “Islam is the only religion on Earth that prescribes death to those who criticize or leave it”.Please be patient to know first what do we (Muslims) believe in prophets: Muslims believe that Allah The Exalted selected some persons from the humans , and sent his legislation to them ,and asked them to notify people with it ,to be a pretext on the human beings on The Day of Judgment.Muslims also believe that Allah sent the Prophets with evidences and supported them with miracles, starting from His Prophet Noah ,and ending with His Prophet Mohamed(Peace Be Upon Them All). If Christians or Jews allow them selves to mock their prophets (who are in fact our prophets as well )this is up to them , but as Muslims we are prohibited to mock any prophet ,and any Muslim who intends to do that becomes an infidel.As for criticizing Islam ,this is a very elastic expression ,it differs when you criticize the words of Allah in the Quran and the words of Prophet Mohamed ,yes this absolutely impermissible . ,while all other Muslims since the first Caliphate till the present Muslim scholars and governors” for every one of them we can take from or leave “.This explains the presence of the four great jurisdiction schools ,in which Malek ,Abu Hanifeh , Shafii and IbnuHanbel explained the Hadiths (scripts ) of Muhamed in relation to the verses of Quran in different ways.So you can find differences in applying the secondary branches of Sharia (judisdiction),while all of them agree on the doctrine and decisive judgments mentioned in Quran and /or Sunna (Prophet Mohamad’s Hadith.)

    1. Who cares what you believe, what that has to do with me no one can explain. Islam is a death cult.

  10. “Islam is the only religion on Earth that prescribes death to those who criticize or leave it” notice Momen never denies this? He just confuses the issue with a rambling explanation of Islamic doctrine. Typical Muslim. No real argument. Did these people afghani go to school?

    As for Mari; there have been repeated stories in the Norwegian mainstream press blaming Fjordman directly for Brievik’s actions. Since Breivik mentioned dozens of people shy focus on Fjordman at all? Your mainstream press has portrayed him as a disabled Jew named “heine” in fact, so who is the real bigot?

  11. I can prove Momen wrong very easily. Besides Islam being a satanic version of Judaism eg Ishmael usurping the place of Isaac, if you believe in Jewish and Christian prophets WHY IS THE BIBLE BANNED in Saudi Arabia?

  12. “Did these people afghani go to school?” Should read “actually,” oh the irony of Iphone autocorrect, lol.

  13. In any open debate we wipe the floor with Muslims and lefties. Long live Fjordman!!!

  14. Yes, long live Fjordman, KSG, Spencer, Geller, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Geert Wilders, Bat Yeor, Wafa Sultan, Sheik Yermami, Michael Coren, Glenn Beck, Pat Condell and scores of others, with millions of supporters put together … Heh, there are a lot more of us than there are of them when you think about it. What do they have? The muslim brotherhood, Saudi oil money and all the stupid useful idiots from the 70’s who are now The Establishment. But their arguments are based on crazy dreams/nightmares, whereas ours are based on truths and facts and our own eyes. Therefore we must win. How can we all get together instead of just being one here, one there as tiny pieces of a millions strong group, sitting in front of our computers?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.