Er Norge en øy?

Er Norge en øy?

Fredag for drøyt en uke siden (22/7 2011) lærte vi alle en leksjon i politisk geografi. Vi lærte en lekse vi aldri vil glemme – såfremt vi da ikke virkelig ønsker å glemme den. Vi lærte lærte å kjenne den fra før så lite kjente Utøya. En øy så liten at mennesker fra utenfor Norges grenser vil ha problemer med å finne den på et kart. Det har ikke vært vanskelig å finne eksempler  på denne typen lærdom i 2011, et år der vi har fått en rekke leksjoner i smertefull politisk geografi: Misrata, Manama, Daraa, Tahir. På den annen side har disse hendelsene hjulpet oss, ikke bare til å bli kjent med nye deler av verden, men også til å forstå noe om egenskapene til de landene disse stedene ligger i. Bahrain viste seg å være mye større og viktigere politisk enn det landets størrelse skulle tilsi; Syria mye dødeligere; Egypt langt mindre forberedt på revolusjon, USA mindre innstilt på endring, og EU mye raskere til å reagere, osv. Leksjonen som Norge ga oss, var imidlertid svært annerledes. Først og fremst fordi vi ikke forventet den. Dernest fordi den ga oss overraskende informasjon om det norske samfunnet. Vi lærte at Norge ikke bare er et land som ligger i det rikeste nordlige hjørnet av verden. Vi lærte også at det norske samfunnet meget vel i seg selv kan være en øy. Som Utøya idyllisk og vakker, perfekt og sivilisert, hovedsakelig skogkledd, eid av et politisk parti og overveldet av en katastrofe.

Norges øy-karakter fremkom som en overraskelse da landets regjering og store deler av folket i kjølvannet av de tragiske hendelsene der én mann massakrerte flere titalls mennesker (mange av dem på en øy), forlot rammene til det kontinentale Europa og flyttet til øya: Utøya. Der er en selvtilfreds uskyldsfølelse enehersker.  Kriminelle og radikale individer som Anders Behring Breivik, med sine talltike internasjonale forbindelser, ideologiske påvirkninger og politiske bevegelser som har lite eller intet å gjøre med Norge, ble på fastlandet. Det ser ut som om få andre mennesker ble værende der, kun noen få isolerte selvkritiske røster.

Når resten av nordmennene ankom øya lovet landets regjering å reagere på terrorisme, ekstremisme og vold med mer frihet og mer demokrati. Dette ble mottatt med høylytt ros fra hele den øvrige verden, bare med den effekt at det forsterket det plettfrie selvbildet til enhver naiv øyboer som ikke hadde gjort noe galt.   De av oss som ble værende på fastlandet, så på Utøya, og så med beundring på hvor raskt man der gjenopptok aktiviteter og gikk tilbake til den vanlige rutine. De var tilsynelatende forberedt på forbli uberørt, med uendrede idealer og intensjoner om å begynne gjenoppbyggingen av øya si. Dette slik at folk raskt skulle innse at det som hadde skjedd, bare var en ekstremists handlinger. Den Utøyiske øya Norge sa farvel til de vanskelige realitetene i terrorismen med en kjærlighetshandling, og satte umiddelbart i gang med sorgprosess-politikk.

Det er likevel veldig vanskelig å være en øy som er omgitt av en korrupt, ondsinnet verden full av ekstremistiske ideologier, politisk ukorrekte partier, fakta-fri journalistikk, mulige internasjonale konspirasjoner og utilfredse, men undertrykte dissiderende stemmer. Dersom dette hadde vært et hvilket som helst annet land, ville vi nok ha sagt at de nå går igjennom en smertefull periode der de ennå ikke er fullt klar over dimensjonene i det som skjedde. At de kanskje trenger litt tid og mye terapeutisk rådgivning for å begripe den aggressive virkeligheten rundt seg. Vi ønsker kanskje å bidra med å sende inn eksperter innen mental helse fra hele verden, folk med erfaring fra konfliktsoner, for å hjelpe dem med å lege sårene og sørge over sine døde. Men budskapet de formidler til oss fra øya tilsier at det går bare bra.

Vi prøver å sende dem signaler, men de er for opptatt i gjenoppbyggingen av øya. De døde – for det meste unge mennesker, uskyldige som de var – blir martyrer for en politisk sak. De ikke like siviliserte følelsene som uttrykkes av dem som ble værende på fastlandet – sinne, tårer, frustrasjon, angst for fremtiden, trakassering av minoriteter, og følelse av mangel på reell politisk deltakelse - er virkelig ikke hjelp  for dem i det Utøy’ske prosjekt for mer demokrati og mere frihet.

Det virker som om Norge har delt seg i to ulike leire med ulike oppfatninger av hva som skjedde. I den ene versjonen blir det sett på som en tragisk og unødvendig konsekvens av ikke å adressere mange menneskers skuffelse over systemet? – at denne har blitt omdannet til forakt.  I den andre versjonen ser man bare det som skjedde som et bevisst angrep på de høyeste og ukrenkelige verdier i regjeringens politiske prosjekt.

Jeg ønsker å sende en invitasjon til øyboerne om å gjennomføre et besøk på det norske fastlandet før de erklærer sin uavhengighet. Dette for en siste gang å forsikre seg om at spøkelsene fra fortiden vil ikke komme og hjemsøke dem i søvne, slik at de kan vedta lover som vil forhindre fastlandsfolk, agitatorer og ekstremistiske elementer fra å besudle deres utopi. Invitasjonen er ikke en oppfordring til en rettssak, slik den som foregår på fastlandet, der morderen møtes med bevisste fornærmelser og beskyldninger; det er snarere en formaning om å reflektere over hva som kan muligens ha gått galt. Ikke med politiske og administrative forordninger, men med våre holdninger, vår medfølelse. Om å tilby et lyttende øre til andre som ikke tenker som en selv. Til den menneskelige siden av demokratiet.

Kanskje vi da kan være i stand til å overbevise dem da, om at Utøya, det tapte paradis’ øy, tilhører hele Norge og ikke bare tilhører saker, grupper eller politiske ideer. At øya tilhører hele Norge, med sine bragder og sin stolthet, men også med sine fiaskoer, sine feil og sin til nå selvpålagte stillhet. Kanskje vi kan da i stand til å overbevise dem om å komme tilbake.

Is Norway an Island?

Is Norway an Island?

Last week we all learnt a lesson in political geography. This lesson will not be forgotten easily - unless we really want to forget. We learnt about the existence of the otherwise little known island of Utøya, that people outside Norway would have difficulties locating on a map.  Lessons of this kind have not been hard to come by in 2011, a year in which we have learnt a lot of painful geography – Misrata, Manama, Daraa, Tahrir.  On the other hand, these lessons have helped us, not only to identify new parts of the world, but we have also learned something about the nature of the countries containing these places. Bahrain turned out to be much bigger and important politically than its size reveals; Syria much deadlier; Egypt much less prepared for revolution; the United States less committed to change and the European Union much quicker to react, etc..

The lesson of Norway however, was very different. First of all because we were not expecting it. Secondly because it gave us surprising information about Norwegian society. We learned that Norway is not only a country located in the wealthiest northern corner of the world. We also learnt that Norwegian society may very well in itself be an island. Like Utøya, idyllic and beautiful, perfect and civilized, largely forested, owned by a political party and overcome with disaster.

The island character of Norway came as a surprise when in the aftermath of the tragic events in which dozens of people were massacred by one man, the government of the country and many of the people left the confines of continental Europe and moved to an island.  There, a smug sense of innocence is the absolute ruler. Criminals and radicals like Anders Behring Breivik stayed in the mainland, with an assortment of international connections, ideological influences and political movements that have little or nothing to do with Norway. It seems that few people, only a few isolated self-critical voices stayed in the country. As the rest of Norwegians arrived in the island, the government promised to respond to terrorism, extremism and violence with more freedom and more democracy, receiving loud praise from all over the world for this. 

Only to reinforce the immaculate self-portrayal of the naïve islander that has done nothing wrong.  Those of us who stayed in the mainland looked onto the shores of Utøya and marveled at how quickly they resumed activities and went back to the normal routine. They were seemingly prepared to go on unmolested with the same ideals as before and intent to begin the reconstruction of their island. This so that people would quickly admit that these were just the acts of an extremist. The Utøyan island of Norway said good-bye to the difficult realities of terrorism with an act of love and immediately set in motion the politics of mourning.

It is very hard nevertheless to be an island surrounded by a corrupt evil world of extremist ideologies, politically incorrect parties, fact-free journalism, possible international conspiracies and discontented but silenced voices of dissent. If it were any other country, we would say that they are going through a painful period in which they are still not fully aware of the dimensions of what happened and that they might need some time, and a lot of therapeutic counseling to come to grips with the aggressive reality around them. We might want to ship in mental health experts from all over the world, trained in conflict zones, in order to help them heal and mourn their dead. But the message they conveyed to us from the island tells us things are just fine.

We try to send them signals, but they’re too busy in the reconstruction of the island. The dead – mostly young people – innocent as they were, are being turned into martyrs of a political cause. The not so civilized feelings of those who stayed in the mainland - anger, tears, frustration, anxiety about the future, harassment of minorities, and lack of true political participation – are truly not helping them in the Utøyan project of more democracy and more freedom.

It seems as if in the understanding of what happened; Norway has split into two alternating versions. In the one version it is seen as a tragic and unnecessary consequence of failing to address the disappointment – turned into resentment – of many people. In the other, one only sees what happened as a deliberate attack on the supreme and sacrosanct values of the government's political project.

I want to extend an invitation to the islanders to pay a visit to the Norwegian mainland before they declare independence. This in order to make sure for a last time that the ghosts of the past will not come and haunt them in their sleep, so that they can enact laws that will prevent the mainlanders, agitators and extremist elements from tainting their utopia. The invitation is not a call for a trial like that taking place in the mainland against the murderer with deliberate insults and accusations; it is rather an exhortation to reflect on what might possibly have gone wrong. Not with policies and administrative decrees, but with our attitudes, with our compassion, with lending a listening ear to the other that doesn’t think like me – to the human side of democracy.

Perhaps we might be able to convince them then, that Utøya, their island of lost paradise, belongs to all of Norway and not only to causes or groups or political ideas; to all of Norway with its achievements and pride, but also with its failures, its mistakes and until now self-imposed silences. Perhaps we might be then able to convince them to return.

Welcome to the New Norway

Note: This article will likely appear published in Norwegian elsewhere, when it comes up, I will provide a link for the Norwegian, nonetheless this is the original version.

Welcome to the New Norway

“We have a good country to live in” is what a Norwegian interviewee told me exactly a week after the deadly attacks of which we all have heard, and I kept wondering to which extent normality had returned to Norway, how far had they embodied the words of Prime Minister Stoltenberg, delivering on themselves the promise of more freedom and more democracy.

My initial reaction was one of curiosity and then of surprise as I spoke to more and more Norwegians and found out that in fact nothing had changed and that life went on, business as usual. Regardless of their walk of life – a public servant, a film maker, a student of political science, a hotel chef and a party goer – there seemed to be a consensus among them that Norway was such a good country to live in and looking at the facts, there is no doubt that they’re correct.  

I kept wondering however, what could be so wrong with Norway that would bring up such headlines as last week’s – but then I found out that what happened in Norway was after all, the heinous act of one man – Anders Behring Breivik. With great dignity the Norwegians had managed to go on with daily life while newspapers and political commentators in Norway and elsewhere had a different take on this; we hear from them to no end the words “alarm”, “crisis” and “catastrophe”.

I decided to act with caution, kept myself from asking uncomfortable questions and began to dig elsewhere. Nothing of what I found was news to me and yet I remembered well the reactions of the street in France and the Netherlands when the multicultural order was challenged by violent events in the course of the 2000’s – The anxiety of the Dutch and the French was nowhere to be found among the Norwegians.

This is very admirable but I cannot help looking at it with some suspicion. Perhaps Norwegians are dismissing the issue too quickly and have focused on the acts of the perpetrator without some conscious self-examination about whether there might be more to it than just Breivik the man.  Behind this all there’s also a society where this has happened and speaking only against the incitement and hatred engendered by the people behind this all is righteous but not entirely a fair assessment.

The political parties and movements out of which extremist violence might have risen have not fallen from the moon, they have been in fact created by means of legitimate democratic processes and people have voted them in – not aliens or mass murderers but rather European citizens of flesh and bone, people beset by the anxiety caused by the dawn of the “new Europe” and who felt that they were not being represented by traditional parties, that they were not being heard and that someone had to do something about this.

There is a need now for an open confrontation with them about many key social and political issues, not only because the future of Europe depends on that but also because the consequences of believing that the social and political order is perfect and, thus must remain unchallenged are not only potentially dangerous but the writing on the wall in Oslo and Utøya as of last week. The confrontation with the uncomfortable is not just a matter of more or less political openness; it has become now a condition for the future.

The multicultural society that came under attack last week is a noble idea even in a country as small and historically homogeneous as Norway, but, the belief that multiculturalism is a policy that is to be dealt with by official channels and government bodies rather than peoples, is potentially dangerous.

Multiculturalism – in so far as it deals with something as unstable as culture and at the same time as concrete as peoples – is not a matter of policy but rather demands a change of heart, an attitude, acts of compassion or love, and ultimately an open negotiation about what is going to be acceptable or not, with both the host and the guest being upfront about their viewpoints, not being deluded by supposed friendships in between peoples that were never such – not even between Norway and its neighbors.

Multiculturalism demands a change of heart as much as policies and on the other hand, terrorism needs to be tackled with a little bit more than love – it also demands serious political decisions to be made. In both cases, policy without social change or the other way around achieves nothing but a temporary truce that can be breached anytime.

More freedom and more democracy cannot mean more of the same freedom and democracy. People must settle down in this new situation that has irreparably shifted things in the political and social landscape. Pretending that by keeping quiet because “we have a good country to live in” they will move on is nothing but an irresponsible delusion.

Going backwards to restore former glories of Europe as the conservatives want or prolonging the status quo of the present – that is, the present that was before last week – as the liberals want, are both dead options now. The new Norway has arrived without a working permit and is going to stay regardless of whether refugee status is granted or not.

What happened in Oslo and Utøya is not only an attack on multiculturalism or a political party – that would be the equivalent of assuming that 9/11 was an attack on the bank whose offices were in this or that floor of the towers – but rather an attack on the whole of Norway’s citizenry and must be understood as such without allowing for one moment on anyone to capitalize political gains on the basis of the crimes committed.

There’s no collective responsibility or collective guilt here, but the time has come for making ourselves responsible for the things that happen in our midst and this means nothing but the possibility to ask difficult questions not only to the perpetrators of this unprecedented act of evil, but also to ourselves, to the political system, to the structural conditions that gave to such ideas the power to act.

The new Norway is already the future of Norway and unless we let go of the moral comfort and speak out the truth about where our fears and hopes on ourselves and the others lie, we will not be able to stop the past from clashing against the future and becoming once again the writing on the wall of what we are avoiding to address.   

Norway – A Room of One’s Own (Uncertainty)

Norway – A Room of One’s Own (Uncertainty)

Until last Friday whoever would have asked “what might possibly be wrong in Norway?” would have been met with puzzling looks on the part of the experts, for what we are dealing with here is a senior member in the ivy-league of nations and not just one another infamous country in the ever so media-popular Middle East or elsewhere in war and famine savaged lands. Norway – idyllic northern playground of socialism, wealth and tranquility – what might possibly be wrong with Norway? Nothing really. However today after the Oslo blast and the deadly massacre in the island of Utøya both the question and the answer have changed and so far we do not know the answer but the question unmistakably is “what went wrong in Norway?” As it is often the case with a tragedy of this nature, our minds are still somewhat wandering in the dark and we have begun to look for an explanation.

Apparently there’s nothing wrong with Norway as far as we can see from the ever so dignified and human reaction on the part of the Norwegian government to the catastrophic events and the concomitant promise that terrorism will be met only with more freedom and more democracy. We all wanted to know how this tragedy fell upon the peaceful Norwegians and quickly enough, saving us time for popular wisdom and conjectures, the media of the world began doing the job for us. The obvious first plausible explanation was of course a terrorist attack against the West carried out by Islamic extremists and then the relationship of Norway to the Arab world was brought under fire by the critics. When we found out that the perpetrator was an ethnic Norwegian – Anders Behring Breivik – the situation changed dramatically and then – to the relief of many people – we were speaking of an attack by a right-wing extremist.

Even though so little information was available, the media of the world sat in front of their computers and began fishing out information about this man. First a file emerged from user comments of Mr. Breivik in the Norwegian web; file that without further ado, was Google-translated from Norwegian into English and posted online by a journalist who probably hadn’t had enough time to read the fifty pages of the manuscript and that he curiously labeled “The Political Writings of Anders Behring Breivik”, probably bringing political theory and writing to an all-times low level of discredit. The situation was further aggrandized when another manuscript emerged from the internet – a hefty book of over one thousand five hundred pages apparently written by Mr. Breivik in English and titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”. The content found in both manuscripts rang alarms all the world the world – except in Norway where the reception on both fronts remained more or less cool overall – and then journalists and experts all over the world took to the task of digging deeper into the meaning behind what we read.

In these writings Mr. Breivik quite speaks out his mind and goes to great pains to detail his views: He hates Islam and multiculturalism, condemns the entire political and educational system of Norway and Europe as a Marxist attempt to destroy European culture and lays out in different ways his project to restore Europe to former glory by a mixture of violent and less violent methods which include not only ideological indoctrination by means of youth movements and newspapers but also the extermination of Islamists and Marxists alike. The details are no doubt chilly but of no less concern is the ways in which mainstream media dealt with the subject: Journalists turned to experts in international affairs – a very misleading term as it explicitly makes out of the world a single continuum of facts that we receive from the news as “truth and world” – which they cited verbatim, commenting on the content on the manuscripts (one from a Google-translated version and the other from a copy just fresh out of the internet) as they read it for the first time and raised voices of outrage at this new situation in which the legitimate institutions of democracy and right are assaulted by extremist forces.

Given the nature of Mr. Breivik’s writings, it is surprising that none of the experts consulted were experts on Norwegian history or politics, European right-wing movements or neo-Fascism. At best the experts were able to establish the obvious – some connections to other right-wing movements (EDL in the UK, PVV in the Netherlands and the home-grown FrP in Norway) and then drifted onto even unlikelier connections that link Israel and also some scholars with dubious credentials directly with the attacks and then lastly the sources of Mr. Breivik’s ideology were highlighted and brought under fire to the avail of no one. Conclusions were gathered before they had even read the entire manuscript and whatever we had wanted to believe, we began to believe. It is not only that mass media fails to distinguish between fact and truth but that fact-free assumptions have taken the central stage of information.

There are two crucial aspects of the particular Norwegian case that have been completely overlooked and that I wish to address only in passing: Firstly, investigative analysis is of little use unless we address the fact that this kind of literature is not unique to Mr. Breivik and that in fact has been widespread in Europe at least, for a long time now; insofar as the act is inseparable from the book and that there are many of these books out there, we’re speaking only of one symptom and not of a unique or isolated phenomenon. It is also necessary to mention at this point that Mr. Breivik, just like the “liberal right-wing” movements in the past decade or Nazism, have not fallen from the moon into a peaceful conflict-free zone, but rather, they have emerged out of specific structural conditions already existent in our societies.

The ideological content portrayed in the book is not only restricted to a few dubious scholars but is deeply entrenched within the intellectual traditions of Europe – the apocalyptic mood, restorations of law and order, religious enmities, cultural superiority – and in the same books and schools of thought that we read in classes of philosophy and law. These cultural moods have prevailed in the European scene all the way back to Hegel’s pupils and were part and parcel of the struggle between German liberalism and conservatism in which conservatism was politically and intellectually suppressed, what ultimately led to imperial disintegration all over Europe and that ended in two world wars so that the older notions of left and right may be considered defunct already then in between Bismarck and Hitler. What we call today liberalism in Europe does not differentiate between right and left in practical matters (such as the economy) and does not come from continental Europe.

Already in the end of the 19^th century, though no one remembers them now, the Leipzig School of Sociology had adopted this worldview based on a particular reading of Hegel and then in opposition, the Marburg School of Philosophy developed the intellectual platform for the coming century based on the critical reason of Kant and it is through them that Hegel’s critics, Kierkegaard and Marx, entered the intellectual scene and were instrumental in shaping directly or indirectly the spiritual life of the Western world and the role models for politics and philosophy. However, these ideologies still survived, they can be thoroughly seen at work in Carl Schmitt and they never entirely disappeared officially until the 1960’s when the new European university rose out of a revolution with Marxist outlook. Suppression of the past – which is what took place all over Europe – is a helpless tactic and the forces at work do not disappear from the social and political scenario even if the references are deleted from the textbooks – Germany and Austria come to mind immediately.

Secondly, Norway is also a very idiosyncratic nation similar to no one. The independence of Norway came very late and the idea of the nation is rather belated by both European and American standards; the constitution of Norway drew heavily on elements from similar British, French and American experiments, a new monarchy was shipped in from elsewhere in the 20^th century after independence from Danish rule and the idea of national identity and the re-making of national history were quietly negotiated; leaving the country at the mercy of little autonomy in an international context. The passion for equality that apparently characterizes the Nordic countries – just like tolerance is admittedly a trait of the Dutch, arguable concept in both cases – played a role here because the Norwegian aristocracy disappeared in medieval times and the construction of the new modern state was for the most part the work of a small group of politicians, bureaucrats, artists and academics.

It was this tiny minority what formed the Norwegian elites and from then on began a series of tensions between the center elites based in Oslo and the periphery embodied in the peasants’ movement of the 1880’s. The official state in Oslo was met with a certain measure of resentment over dependence on the part of the periphery, conflict which was solved through politics rather than policies and negotiation over participative politics. What constitutes elites in Norway was constantly challenged and changed in the course of the 20^th century but what did not change was the certain measure of discomfort about this central state that though a minority; has always not only ruled but also been seen with suspicion and resentment by many people.

National unity has been important especially after the discovery of oil but nevertheless its terms have been as unstable as the terms of national identity and autonomy, being a small country in the periphery of the European Union and other major economic blocks; for this reason intervention of the official state in private affairs is unparalleled to most other nations so that during the late 1990’s it was said in international economic contexts that Norway was the last Soviet state: Freedom of speech is rather limited outside the scope of established political consensus and economic growth is defined by politics by a much larger extent than by entrepreneurs. 

The two points outlined above are essentially important to bear in mind when analyzing the Breivik case because we must place ourselves against the background of this tragedy, how they are interrelated, why and what we can conclude from them: The ideological premises behind Breivik’s heinous deeds have not been taken seriously by the Norwegian and the European populace because having achieved the status of being the most perfect, peaceful and egalitarian nation on earth, Norwegians are not open to self-criticism on their society or politics and it is usually the case that criticism of the country abroad is ignored at home or quickly dismissed – something that fluctuates between smug and pride; attitude that is replicated by the minority political system itself so that dissenting political opinions are not socially acceptable, what becomes a grave accusation in such a small and socially homogeneous land. It is not only Breivik and its possible accomplices, intellectual friendships and supporters but Norway as a whole and Europe that need to scrutinize themselves and ask how it is possible that structural conditions were ripe for these movements, ideologies, suppressions of opinion and acts of horror, ultimately.

The history of Norway is by no means free of blame. There has been widespread Anti-Semitism and occasional outbursts of xenophobia, the participation of Norwegians in Nazi totalitarianism, the Norwegianization of the Sami peoples of northern Norway and the official state policy of demonizing dissenting opinions. As we know from this horrible life-example, the problems of the past are not going away when we build a wall around them and perhaps it is the time to deal with the past and the present without euphemisms and without mythical figures of demonization and ostracism. The government has earned much praise in saying that they will respond to terrorism with more democracy and more freedom, however nobody knows specifically what it means other than maintaining the status quo of pre-22/7 politics at the benefit of the minority political system.

Some have said not without sound arguments that this is the end of the extreme right wing parties as we know them and that Geert Wilders and company have been ultimately defeated because it is their spread of hate ideology what has somewhat made this possible. Without addressing the nature of the demands made by Mr. Breivik and his kind of people in manuscripts, protests and ultimately acts of violence, nothing could be further from the truth. Even at the risk of not liking or being comfortable with what some segments of society want to say, they must be heard instead of silenced and their questions must be addressed with more than ideology: An open confrontation with the past and the present has become a condition for the future.

Multiculturalism is a noble idea but the cracks are now evident, more so in Norway than for example in the Netherlands and Britain that truly have a history of multiculturalism. It is not because there is anything wrong with it but because multiculturalism has been understood in Europe as policy-making and never as a change of heart, as an act of love, and ultimately as a personal negotiation between the members of different fragile communities to agree on what is acceptable or not – in this point both the host authorities and the guests are to stand on trial for their misgivings. On the other hand Norway responds to terrorism apparently with nothing but love and this is just so wrong because both multiculturalism and terrorism must be addressed with a change of personal attitudes as much as with sound policies. More democracy and more freedom it seems to appeal only to the continuation of the same, that great as it might have been, Norway has to realize, it is already a long by-gone past. Yes. Everything that Norway was before last week, it is already in the past. What Norway is going to become, we don’t know but it is clear that it cannot stay the same. Policies are not enough to protect people from being discriminated or isolated behind thick invisible walls.

We are living in times of great uncertainty and anxiety, product of the breakdown of the traditional sense of community and many people attempt in vain to seek an already lost security under the wings of a culture understood as identity – in this sense the Muslim communities and disenfranchised Europeans are looking for the same things – and this loss doesn’t have to do with being losers or winners in globalization or local societies than it has to do with a nostalgia over having lost a sense of belonging and membership that provides identity and values. Identity in the modern world is not something stable or fixed and furthermore, both the cultural conservative project of restoring the past and the left or socialist or cultural Marxist project of maintaining untouched the fragile structure of the present, these projects are doomed to fail and this is why I asserted the paradigm is dead; in reality, beyond the realm of ideology, both are subject to the same anxieties and unsettling feelings of insecurity.  The true potential of Europe is its vision for the future and the ability to re-make political history for every generation and not a fixed potential for either conservatism or liberalism – that’s dead letter. Resorting to pessimism is also to no avail, for both the modern world and Western civilization cannot survive without Europe, unless we understand our civilization and the modern world as economic and social structures free of values.

The countless losses of lives in Oslo and Utøya are not an attack on specific political ideas or platforms and understanding them as such is allowing for parties and ideologies to capitalize gains on the horrible deaths of young people – these deaths were heinous acts committed against humanity and as such we must responded to it on the basis of our humanity, not as an abstract institution but as a community of people different as much as diverse. When it is said that “We’re all Norway” not so much as much it achieved as it could be by saying “I am a Jew and I stand behind Norway”, “I am a Muslim and I stand behind Norway”, “I am a Christian and I stand behind Norway”, “I am a liberal and I stand behind Norway”, “I am a conservative and I stand behind Norway”. There is no such a thing as collective responsibility here and each man must be held accountable for his own deeds to the same way that only he, beset by inner turmoil over his own identity can stand up against terror by demanding not only accountability of the criminal(s) but also the political openness that could prevent this from happening.

Yes, it is very difficult to live with so much uncertainty, but nobody said that freedom is an easy thing – Western philosophy and theology know this very well – and it comes with a price. There’s always the easy solution to keep silent, to capitalize on tragedies for ideological and political gain, to act as if nothing happened in order to move on. I can only conclude by telling the people of Norway that a little more than freedom and democracy is needed in order to move on. The future of Norway will not begin until we all accept that it is not only Breivik but our whole political institutions that need to be asked difficult questions; the future of Norway will not begin until the moment when we realize that the past as we know it – political institutions, ideological enfranchisements and social structures – is no more.

Breivik Files

Norwegian Translator: olefosse
English Translator: Dilmunite

Index

Introduction & Files September 2009 Part I

Files September 2009 Part II

Files October 2009

Files November 2009

Files December 2009 Part I

Files December 2009 Part II

Files 2010


Notes from Norway by olefosse

Final remarks by Dilmunite

Final remarks

There is not much one can add at this point, the text should speak for itself. This long text that extends well into 50 pages was not necessarily easy translate; I translate large sections manually, and used a different variety of tools, some CAT software and a previous version done by Ole, the Norwegian translator. Translating such a vast amount of text in a record time doesn't come without some challenges. I cannot claim that the translation is perfect, neither that it is perfectly loyal to Norwegian; my intention above all was to produce a text that would be easily readable to English speakers and I believe I've succeeded. Over time these texts will lead to many questions that in turn will question the translation and I might be able to amend serious mistakes. Not only the length of the text was overwhelming but also the nature and content even independently of the context. I did my best not to omit anything and to leave it just as it is. It might seem incredible but this was there floating free in the Internet for some years. The purpose of this translation was to provide the world at large that doesn't speak Norwegian an authentic glimpse into the writing and thinking of the Norway shooter, since I saw that media relied extensively on Google translate, what seemed to me rather preposterous. Along the way Ole appeared and volunteered a previous translation to work from which I corrected substantially but that saved me a lot of time, so that in a way this was team work. Any questions about the translation, I might be available via Twitter.

Notes from the Norwegian Translator

Notes by olefosse

The text below consists of the recently publicly identified norwegian mass murderer Anders  Behring Breivik’s posts on the Norwegian website document.no.

The posts were made available on document.no’s website in the early morning hours of July 23^rd 2011.

The text has been translated via Google Translate, and has thereafter  been roughly formatted with changes in separation of the posts and accentuation  of the date headings in bold and read. Red  ink has been used to mark changes made to correct errors in the the auto translation.

The automatic translation is not bad, but induces numerous errors in syntax and incorrectly translated or missed complex words. This has been addressed to the degree necessary to understand the meaning of the text for English speaking readers. The sentences have beenhandled with as much care as possible, as to not alter the contained information. I have tried, as far as the limited time available has allowed, to proofread thoroughly and take care not to inflict changes to the meaning of words and sentences. These corrections  are marked in red, where applied, in the text below.

The original Norwegian text is supplied as a separate file. Comparisons of the texts can thus be made at any time by someone proficient in both the English and Norwegian languages, if  one should for some reason find this necessary. For such purposes, a re-run through Google translate should also provide the erroneous raw translation I have used as the skeleton for this translation.

The views and opinions expressed by the now-murderer who authored this text are, of course, since they are taken out of the debate threads in which they were posted, not in their original setting, and are not more than isolated expressions. Most are posts regarding islam and multiculturalism, and topics related to this, expressed in a discussion forum environment with other persons holding both similar and opposite views.  

The website document.no is at present still up and running, and contains the threads from which this text is extracted. Anyone interested in delving deeper into this matter, may of course provided he or she understands Norwegian, explore these threads in depth.

Nevertheless, this text gives an eerie insight into thoughts and opinions of obviously significant importance to this disturbed man, who for reasons not understandable to any sane man or woman, turned mass murderer yesterday.

Working through this document, translating it over the past 20 hours, has been a sickening, disturbing experience.

It is my humble hope analyzing this information and connecting this with whatever other useful data that may be at hand or can be dug up  can help to cast light onto the as of now incomprehensible acts performed by ABB may have come to happen. If such an understanding can be obtained, that may possibly assist in creating some kind of understanding of how to prevent something like this from ever happening again. That will, I think, be neccesary to achieve the healing the wounds this  monstrous character has inflicted on our beloved country, Norway. If so, it will surely have been worth the effort.

It is not illogical to think that the issues he speaks of in his post have been a main factor in this man’s  incomprehensible evolution, ending with him performing unspeakable acts of terror, inflicting meaningless deaths, damage and grievance to a great number of people, and great damage to our country and society  as a whole.

It has been less than 9 months since this man’s last post.

Breivik Files: 2010

Translated by Dilmunite & olefosse

Breivik Files 2010

2010-01-02 14:20:13

There are political forces in Oslo who want to mass-build subsidized/low cost "Islam-blocks" in Oslo West for "better integration". As far as I know, it is only the Progress Party / Conservatives who oppose this at the moment, so it can actually become a reality over the next decade.

If this ever becomes the case, many from Oslo West will move to Bærum (and most will eventually follow).

Hm, but where do you move when this policy reaches Bærum?

2010-01-19 11:25:11

Very good article:) It helps pushing the debate to a new level.


2010-01-22 02:53:39

I'm tempted to get in touch with the owners and explain to them the possibility of success through restructuring my leadership. This will involve firing all remaining cultural Marxists and start with the culturally conservative coverage as the first major newspaper in Norway (critical of multiculturalism/Islamization). It is realistic to believe that the circulation will then have the potential to reach up to 120-200k.

It surprises me that there are no more "culturally conservative entrepreneurs" in the Kingdom of Norway?

Do you think the owners will have a positive attitude to such proposal?

I will not be a good option, though, as I have absolutely zero knowledge of editorial processes. I think however, Hans Rustad should be responsible for the editorial and invite them to consider his concept. I think the timing for this is perfect right now!

There are 15 cultural Marxist politically correct papers already in Norway and not a single one culturally conservative. The first culturally conservative (not politically correct) publication will be GUARANTEED success.

2010-01-24 10:45:19

The problem with the Progress Party (FrP) is that they have become too entrenched in reaching out for multiculturalism and the demands of humanistic and suicidal ideas. In many ways they have thrown out the baby with the bath water.

 Genuine resistance has been reduced to listening to the PR agency and do 2-3 tactical statements before each election, to ensure the votes of the core.

The vast majority of new faces in the Progress Party are now politically correct career politicians and not in any way idealists who are willing to take risks and work for idealistic goals.

The comic part is that even though they have thrown almost all principles on the garbage dump and reduced cultural struggle to "reducing the flow of asylum seekers with a couple of thousands" are still being branded in public, ridiculed, harassed and isolated by the humanist-Marxists.

Parliamentary Representatives from the Progress Party should at least read document.no every single day and involve themselves a bit as it is their duty to be the people's voice. Unfortunately, very few of them at all know what document.no is at all, and fewer than 5% of them know what taqiyya and naskh is.

For example when a combined force chose to ignore the Swedish and French intifada before the last election for strategic reasons, which later cost FrP maybe 5%;  Siv should have instructed all of her people to call the ARK and other newsrooms and force them to cover this news.

I have great respect for how the Marxist-humanist networks in Norway are able to use their power optimally through "force multiplication" and cooperation.

They are insanely hard-working, skilled in consolidation and most of the right has a lot to learn from them.

2010-01-25 05:20:24

Public Enemy, Carl Christian

What you manage to come up with here is nothing but very nasty control techniques.

You claim that all Norwegians who do not follow the  nation’s “moth-(murder)-er” Gro Harlem Brundtland‘s definition, is racist:

"Anyone who at a given time holds a Norwegian passport is a full Norwegian" ... Which means that even the Somali (with a Norwegian passport) who chews qat all day, beats his wife and sends half the social benefits he receives to al-Shabaab should be viewed as a full worthy Norwegian citizen.

If anyone in this country DARES to look at this Somali as anything other than a full-Norwegian they are racists and need to be branded publically. And you say that everyone who disagrees with their extreme cultural Marxist world view - the utopian, global citizen- definition are racists?

In that case, I think you have labeled 95% of the world population as just this but this plays just a minor role for you?

You are only committed to paralyzing all debate in society, to silence all those who are not of the same opinion as you, to exercise social control in line with the conservative Muslims in Greenland? Once a person takes off his "ideological hijab" you are there immediately as the troll you are.

Sorry, but it does not work anymore. More people will be increasingly immune to your rule techniques due to their massive inflation rhetoric.

I think the majority of Norwegians demand full cultural assimilation (European culture) to count others as full Norwegians. Hans in his analysis is thus correct. A Norwegian passport is irrelevant in this context. Get over it ...!

    :-)

2010-02-02 13:35:11

I completely agree that Obama is a brilliant rhetoric and communicator, one of the best we've seen over the past 30 years.

But firstly, we can not and should not compare the cultural struggle in the U.S. with that in Europe. The rhetoric must and should be different. The average "right-wing party" -voter Republican in the U.S. is a "libertarian" (anti-socialist but pro multiculti) while the average conservative in Europe is much more anti-multiculti but bases his arguments on cultural resistance against Islamization.

The so-called anti-multiculti in the U.S. base their rhetoric on ethnocentrism alone which thus differs greatly from Europeans. This is the main reason that we must separate the American and European cultural struggle. I usually stay away from American issues as a result.

Regardless of whether we are in the U.S. or Europe, it is essential for you to inquire the following:

When did multiculturalism cease to be an ideology designed to deconstruct European culture, traditions, identity and nation-states? If you support a leader who propagates multiculti (the ideology that as of this writing systematically deconstructs Western civilization), can one not then just as well stick to the class struggle or  MSM?

And if one then thinks that multiculturalism’s wonderful doctrines are the main cause of the ongoing Islamization of Europe and the U.S., should one not criticize multiculturalism’s leader No. 1, the one Jesus Christ Obama for his fundamental principles?

Failing to criticize him, has one not then accepted the multiculturalist wonderful premises?

2010-02-16 19:25:24

According to two surveys 13% of young British Muslims between 15 and 25 support Al Qaeda ideology. UK is representative for Norway, so I would guess that at least 15-20% of Norwegian Muslims support murder of gays. There is certainly not fewer who support the killing of gays than support Al Qaeda.

2010-02-17 10:56:52

Problem is that it often does not help if 80% of Muslims are "moderates", ie they ignore the Quran. "It takes very few people to overthrow a plane."

What percentage is the Taliban of Pakistan's population? 1%, 3%, 5%? And how much chaos is there today?

In every society where Islam exists there will be a certain percentage of the Muslims who actually follow the traditional interpretations of the Koran.

And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called "moderate Muslims".

There are moderate Nazis, too, that don’t support extermination of Roma and Jews. But they're still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservative Nazis strike (if it ever happens). Should we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the extermination of Roma and Jews?

Now things have unfortunately already gone wrong with Marxists who have already thoroughly infiltrated culture, media and educational organizations. These individuals are tolerated and are even allowed to work as professors and lecturers at colleges/universities and are thus able to spread their propaganda.

For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differently. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies. Not all Muslims, Nazis and Marxists are conservative, most are moderate. But does it matter? A moderate Nazi might, after having experienced fraud, choose to be conservative. A moderate Muslim can, after being refused to enter a club, be conservative, etc.

It is obvious that the moderate supporters of hate-ideologies, at a later date may choose conservatism.

    Islam (ism) has historically led to 300 million deaths
    Communism has historically led to 100 million deaths
    Nazism has historically led to 6-20 million deaths

    ALL hate ideologies should be treated equally.

2010-06-15 11:11:55

Very good and very important article. Great work, Hans!

2010-09-01 08:19:15

Lasse Moer,

Japan and South Korea are much clearer examples of countries that consistently and outright dismissed multiculturalism. This they confirmed in the 70 -, 80 -, 90’s and this they confirm to this very day.

The UN has for years been trying to push them to receive hundreds of thousands of refugees but the number has ended in a tiny fraction of the original claim. Europe has never chosen to run psychological and economic warfare against them for this reason (as they do to European nations/individuals who espouse the same arguments and principles)

Multiculturalists become very embarrassed if you mention Japan and South Korea as these nations prove quite obviously that mass immigration is only a result of specific Marxist doctrines and is very rarely economically or culturally beneficial. Japan/South Korea has a border and border guards. If one lacks a visa one is denied passage ... (Europe presumably had  this scheme prior 1950-1960)

The interesting question is the, why are not Japanese and South Koreans demonized as the Nazis and fascists? The answer, we know ...

2010-09-21 23:20:25

The main axes are the economy and culture.

They were right-wing culturally but economically leftist (not as extreme as the planned economy but still strongly socialist). So it is equally wrong to call them right wing as the left extreme. They were both: P

The left of course likes to tag them as right wing, as well as anti-socialists refer to them as the left extreme.

The third axis: authoritarian vs liberal is inappropriate to use as the main marker.

2010-10-29 14:08:40

Thanks for the great effort until now, Hans and Document.no

You are doing an incredibly important job and are considered today to be one of very few ideological alternative voices. And you ARE noticed from the country's parliamentary representatives and journalists. I would even argue that Document has become a political force in Norway, as we all know that the country's elites secretly read Document weekly! :-) You continue to do Norway a great service! :-)

I wish however to make some constructive criticism when it comes to Document’s organizational and financial plans. Please do not take it personally:)

Considering Document’s modest economy and that there are in any case 50 talented writers in Norway who had willingly helped more actively, I think it would be a very bad idea to focus 90% of Documents assets on a permanent reporter position. Today there are a plethora of essays and articles that requested to be distributed without financial compensation so why spend all the funds in a reporter position? I'm pretty sure that, under the circumstances, very costly position is liquidated in the course of a two-year period when I expect that you will eventually get to the same conclusion.

It would be a pity if you ignored the suggestions and decided to squander all the money on a potentially "politically correct" person with a background in the Marxist boot camp: Volda University College or any other journalist (Marxist) camps, etc.

What you, however, should focus economically on, is to develop "Concept Document" socially and organizationally, primarily through the development of this blog to a solution more like a social networking for example, that is linked to similar organizations in other countries (similar to a beginning of a cultural Euro-version of a Tea Party movement).

Alternatively, should you publish a monthly magazine that is distributed through Narvesen. I have already presented a detailed strategy for how this can be done. I collected all the offers from suppliers, I even contacted Narvesen and then submitted this to you, Hans. Full distribution through Narvesen (2000 copies monthly magazine), can be produced for less than NO. 35 000 per month, an investment GUARANTEED to provide "break-even" and could potentially result in TWICE the revenue! I do not understand why someone from Document have not wanted to consider my proposal?

You have, at present, access to a fleet of some of the brightest talents in most industries that would be willing to work for free. This talent is now unused. So why use up 90% of Document’s agents on a reporter position?

I have worked with project development for 14 years with several projects related to web solutions, have the financial education + two other Bachelor's degrees, earned my first million as an entrepreneur at the age of 24 and have many friends who are today  successful entrepreneurs in most industries. Several of my friends are experts on the development of social networking sites (one of them runs Deiligst.no, Norway's probably the most profitable online communities despite the frayed moral concept).

The point of the illustration is that you have access to very valuable skills, free, that you now refuse you to use.

I hope you will be willing to receive help to a much greater extent than you do today and instead use the modest funds for more essential costs, as outlined above.

Anyway, get on! I support you 100% no matter what you ultimately choose ;-)

Breivik Files December 2009 Part II

Translated by Dilmunite  and olefosse

Breivik Files December 2009 Part II

2009-12-05 07:14:39

Lars M,

Name to me one country where Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims without leading Jihad against Kafr (dhimmitude, systematic slaughter or demographic warfare)?

I could name 40 countries/areas where this has had CATASTROPHIC consequences for the non-Muslims. Can you please name ONE single example where one has managed to assimilate the Muslims? You seem totally naive. Of course, some integrate but it is the total result that counts (everything else is irrelevant).

How many thousands of Europeans must die, how many hundreds of thousands of European women should be raped, millions robbed and harassed before you understand that multiculturalism + Islam does not work?

Why do you think Norway will be the first country in the world over the last 1400 years in which this will succeed?

History always repeats itself.
2009-12-05 07:41:50

Speaking of stubborn multiculturalists. I remember very well a story from Oslo newspaper Aftenposten approx. 6 months ago (unfortunately, I was unable to find it).

I can remember that it was a school in the City Center East, in a class where there was only a single Norwegian boy left (the majority were Muslims). Most others had taken their children out of school. The mother of this boy was, of course, a hardcore Marxist who for the life of it was to prove that multiculturalism and Islam would be functioning. She refused to move to another area or take him out of school. Her son would prove once and for all that Islamophobes on document.no and other cultural conservatives were wrong and that it WAS possible.

The poor boy was harassed for several years until one day he began to inflict injuries to himself. He told his Marxist mother that he wanted to die. Only after this the mother realized that she had been wrong. The result was that they moved to another neighborhood and changed schools.

So one should not underestimate how "hardcore" some of these cultural Marxists actually are. I'm sure some of these actually would have sacrificed their own children just to prove this sick Marxist theory.

But there is, after all, some justice in it all. The positive for us, the cultural conservatives, is that we are among the first to protect our children, we moved to safe areas where our children do not need to live in dhimmitude.

It is often the children of the boundless naive and Marxist kids who end up as victims. The irony here is that those who survive with psyche intact ends up as a dedicated cultural conservatives or even as ethnocentrics to the great frustration of their cultural Marxist or humanist parents:))


2009-12-05 08:42:59

Anyway.

It is very important that we here in document.no we do not restrict our "political commitment" to this page. There are great political upheavals taking place in Western Europe at the moment (a subversion at grass root level). The culturally conservative movement is growing at record speed and there is a consolidation process going on in all Western European countries. ANYONE can contribute and every single contribution counts:) The best thing you can do in Norway is to support Document.no either financially or through volunteer work. Visit the various Norwegian debate forums and market articles on Document.no and with dedicated effort, I am sure that Document has the potential to become the new "Aftenposten".

Hans will soon present his ideas on how this can be done.

I recommend also strongly recommended you all to extend your Facebook networks, using the daily quota of 50 invitations to connect with Brits, French, Swedes, etc.. Join groups like SIOE - Stop *Islamization of Europe, Against Multiculturalism, join the Progress Party (FrP/Fremskrittspartiet), if nothing else:)

Watch the pages gatesofvienna, brusselsjournal, Jihadwatch, religionofpeace etc.

Read Fjordmann's work "Defeating Eurabia". This is e.g. the perfect Christmas gift for family and friends.

Add: Analekta Informatics on Facebook. This group communicates news articles that are unknown to most people. Very good news service that document.no can use if desired.

It is especially important that we, the Norwegian cultural conservatives make an effort. Norway and Sweden have some of the world's most repressive press censorship when it comes to a critical view of Islamization and multiculturalism.

The biggest mistake most people make is they assume that "someone else" *makes the work for them. There is no other, it's just us;)

Looking forward to meeting as many as possible of you on Thursday:). Let's hope Hans does not choose Blitz Café or Internationalen:)).

(To add me on Facebook please send an email to year2083@gmail.com)
2009-12-05 15:50:16

Hårstad,
It would have been strategically right,  and a fun PR stunt, Hårstad:)

It is actually very interesting for us younger generations to learn about the Norwegian Marxist movement, the former power conflicts, etc.

 I got the impression that the more "hardcore" Marxists have been denied key posts in the AP (Arbeiderpartiet/Labor) after WW2. They were instead given leading positions in various colleges/universities, newspaper managements and NGOs?

Can you confirm whether there have been some organizational incentives/assisting behind this or are simply Marxists exceptionally career conscious and able to climb in the cultural hierarchy?

I've always wondered what happened to the Norwegian fascist movement in Norway? Has it never existed or cut they are simply the politics and focused in business after WW2?

By the way, do you know exactly how Aftenposten was coup’ed and when that happened? They supported the NS during WW2. Was the leadership imprisoned or replaced immediately after the war?
2009-12-06 13:26:53

Jarle J

You raise many interesting points. I've even made lists of these networks, which I will include in my book. It is essential to counter this by continuing the consolidation (have pasted into charts earlier, specific tasks and activities, annual plans etc. to systematically regain control of specific NGOs and strengthen the cultural conservatives of all 7 different political fronts. Another important task is to create a cultural conservative media outlet with national distribution. We are in the process with this.

Regarding your choice of an ideological basis. 50 years of efforts by ethnocentric organizations/movements (from 1960-2009) have failed completely. We know this, and further focus, illumination of these strategies will only be counter-productive and potentially very damaging to the current Norwegian and European cultural conservative movements.

Ethnocentric movements like BNP, National Front are NOT successful and will never be able to get over 10% support (BNP 5%, the UN has 7%). One can not fight racism (multikulti) with racism. Ethnocentrism is therefore the complete opposite of what we want to achieve.

We have selected the Vienna School of Thought as the ideological basis. This implies opposition to multiculturalism and Islamization (on cultural grounds). All ideological arguments are based on anti-racism.

This has proven to be very successful, something which explains why the modern cultural conservative movements/parties that use the Vienna School of Thought are so successful: the Progress Party (FrP), Geert Wilders, document.no and many others.

Ethnocentrism is contrary to the principles of the Vienna School of Thought which is why you have been censored in the past.

I have worked several years for the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet/FRP) and guarantee you that the Progress Party would have had less than 10% support if they had not chosen the Vienna School of Thought as an ideological basis.

Yes, we will defeat the multiculturalism/cultural Marxism ultimately (as this is very discriminatory and racist). But we must do it on the correct ideological grounds.

2009-12-06 23:39:10

    Hårstad,

I strongly doubt that your theory is correct. The whole conflict between BNP and EDL started with a change of leadership in the EDL  a few months ago. They threw out the racists and denounced the BNP. They instead chose SIOE's ideological basis, which is more or less the mainstream view of the right side in Western Europe now (Vienna School of Thought).

Nick was very offended and began to demonize the EDL. Although they are now attacking each other as they do not compete at all, since these are two totally different fronts. 90% of all votes in the EDL still vote for BNP (Since this is the only alternative against multiculti in the UK) and 90% of BNP support EDL regardless of what Nick might think.

Secondly, Labour rules in the intelligence service. They would never have supported the EDL as they create a lot of positive attention for the culturally conservative movements in the UK.

I have on some occasions discussed with SIOE and EDL and recommended them to use conscious strategies.

The tactics of the EDL is now to "entice" an overreaction from Jihad Youth / Extreme-Marxists, something they have succeeded in achieving several times already. The overreaction has been repeatedly shown on the news, something which has boosted EDLs ranks quite a lot. This has also benefited GDP. WinWin for both.

But I must say I am very impressed with how quickly they have grown, but this has to do with smart tactical choice by their management.

EDL is an example worth following, and a Norwegian version is the only way to prevent Blitz/SOS to harass Norwegian cultural conservatives from other fronts. Creating a Norwegian EDL should be No. 3 on the agenda after we have started up a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution.

The agenda of the Norwegian cultural conservative movement over the next 5 years is therefore:

    1. Newspaper with national distribution
    2. Control of several NGOs
    3. Norwegian EDL

2009-12-09 10:50:32

The day Document.no will be launched as a national publication in paper/net edition with a circulation of 2000 +, the editors/management of the company should, of course, adjust themselves depending on the goal in terms of circulation and ideology. For example, one can allow oneself to be less moderate in an edition of 2000 than in 100000. This is obvious.

It is essential that editors act in such a manner that is appropriate for the company and its ideological goal (if document.no has any ideological goals at all). It must also be considered whether in the future (at 20, 50, 100K circulation) one should be allowed to comment on articles, in addition to specifying the limitations to expressing oneself in that way.

    - Are only individuals who believe that the other party is "weak" to be allowed to express themselves?
    - Are individuals who believe that parts of the other party are acting according to conscious ideological convictions to be censored?

    - Are only individuals who have a humanistic view on news reporting going to be allowed to express themselves?
    - Are those individuals who want to convey clear cultural conservative ideological convictions going to be censored?

These questions can only be answered when one clarifies one’s ideological principles. In all cases one should keep an open and honest line to oneself and to the readers as much as possible.

I think the editors of the future (soon) will have to look into themselves and specify their objectives (whether the goal is of humanistic nature or if clear ideological principles should be the basis thereof). I'm curious as to if the editorial staff does have a clear ideological conviction/goal at all (an ideological agenda such as other publications seem to have: Klassekampen, Dagsavisen, partly NRK, etc.) or if it is the goal of humanistic art?

Humanistic in the sense that it is a duty to examine the other side of an issue (where other publications certainly fail). Is it so that the basis for document.no should be driven by a "humanistic duty" and not driven by any kind of ideological ambition (culturally conservative or otherwise)?
 This discussion should not be taken here, of course, but should be noticed by the editors, and, if possible, be discussed on Thursday:)

It is important to clarify these fundamental issues early, since a possible involvement of other parties, such as culture conservative political parties/NGOs/investors/voluntary contributors, will be depending on a clarification of this before they may be willing to give their financial/organizational support to document.no

It is well known that commercial publications (ranging from CNN, BBC, Dagbladet, Fox) have clear but often "unofficial ideological platforms" that employees are expected to follow. Such ideological principles are necessary in order to have an unofficial "ideological clause" that prevents unwanted future developments.

For example, Lou Dobbs of CNN was hit by the unofficial section, and he ultimately chose to go. It is not unlikely that he was forced out because he changed his ideological standpoint in the course of his career. He became more and more critical of Muslim mass immigration to the U.S. which was not consistent with CNN's politically correct line.

Document.no is at present relatively innocent, but the price one must pay for success is often loss of innocence:) For better or for worse.

All idealistic projects/individuals experience this identity phase/crisis as soon as they want to cross a more or less commercial barrier:)

2009-12-09 17:14:41

Here is a nice overview - 10 reasons why the modern church will die:

    http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-modernist-christianity-will-die.html

I myself am a Protestant and baptized/confirmed of my own free will when I was 15

But today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centers. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic. In the meantime, I vote for the most conservative candidates in church elections.

The only thing that can save the Protestant church is to go back to basics.
2009-12-17 18:36:54

Hans, Aesop,

Article Series Ekstremistan I, II, III is one of the best that have ever been here. Incredibly well written, Hans:)
Well, I think one of our problems is that too many individuals (especially liberals) on the right side contribute to cannibalizing their own opinion allies. For some, it has to do as well with too many decades of cultural Marxist brainwashing. For others it may be due to cowardice or fear of contributing to create something that may one day evolve into an even worse alternative.

Many people who try to consolidate on the right side by presenting organizational structure, bulleted lists or ideological banners (and who push for specific agendas and deadlines to be followed to achieve the organizational goals) are being be criticized by individuals who wish to limit opposition to "essaying critique/criticism of the system". They probably hope that this alone will suffice for the cultural Marxist elites/hegemony to realize how stupid and bad they have been?

Before "we" can do anything, there must be a "we". Consolidation is the only option and resistance can not be limited to "essay critique/criticism of the system." The Progress Party (FrP) is already established. But it must work actively to ensure culturally conservative control over NGOs (old or new) and in addition help to create youth organizations (A newspaper with national coverage is obviously the most important but this is already on the agenda).

I know that Hans and Aesop disagree with me regarding this (because they are afraid to help create a monster which they later will lose control over) but in this we will prove you wrong :-)

And I hope you are tough enough to discuss this rather than to censor it out:).

Key words for discussion:

"Can dissidence, alone, save us, or do we have to finally start to consolidate the cultural conservatives on all fronts?"
2009-12-25 09:58:33

I have never understood why the West focuses so disproportionately on Iran and so little on the Wahhabi Saudi leadership, which after all is the most dangerous and most powerful Muslim central power. We should, of course, as soon as possible blow up their suspect facilities but otherwise focus much more on Saudi. Could it have something to do with that Iran is not a major oil exporter?

Shias make up a relatively small proportion of Muslims and have absolutely no influence on the Sunnis.

I would actually argue that we undermine our own interests by unilaterally attacking the only relatively weak alternative to Sunni Islam. If Iran falls, the Wahhabis’ position will strengthened considerably, since they have no competitors.

We should not forget that Saudi Arabia and several other Sunni Muslim countries want to crush Iran. Nor is it Iran that has built 300-500 Wahhabi centers around Europe, and they finance only 2 out of 30 Jihad Fronts around the around the world.
2009-12-30 07:14:01

The problem is that Europe lost the Cold War already in 1950, the moment they allowed Marxists/anti-nationalists to ravage freely, without restrictions regarding which positions they could have and what power positions they were allowed to obtain (teacher / professor positions in particular).

The result particularly in Norway and Sweden is that extreme Marxist attitudes have become acceptable/commonplace while the old-established truths like patriotism and cultural conservatism today are branded as extremism (by cultural Marxists and humanists). Anti-nationalist attitudes have, unfortunately, not only become mainstream but are now required as an attitude in order to climb in PC (i.e. Politically Correct) hierarchies.
There are not very many prominent cultural Marxists that actually admit to the purpose behind this anti-national and "Marxist grand scheme" but nobody can say it better than Thomas Hylland Eriksen:

"The main challenge is now to deconstruct the majority and do it thoroughly so that it can never be called a majority anymore"

"Something like that could contribute both to understanding and liberation."

    http://www.culcom.uio.no/nyheter/2008/hylland-eriksen.html
This is CLEARLY extremist hate-speech. Here Eriksen admits, on behalf of many European cultural Marxists that the goal is to create a Marxist utopia, a world without borders ruled by the UN, an opinion which is the main doctrine of Marxist thinking. To achieve this, the people have been declared insane (racist/Nazi) and anti-democratic methods can therefore be allowed to replace the people by allowing systematic colonization from the developing world.

In a society where Marxist extremists like Thomas Hylland Eriksen are allowed to practice freely within the bounds of political correctness, other more moderate humanists / cultural Marxists (extremists), like Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse will appear as liberation heroes (Nazis (Jews) should be crushed just like the Nazi Germany).

Had Western Europe and the U.S. decided to imprison all Marxists (Nazis and Marxists) after WW2 and to ban Marxist principles as hate ideology similar to Nazism, we had never been in the current situation.

But we learn at least as long as we live. I doubt that a future patriotic regime will make that mistake again, if we manage to save the West before it is too late, that is ...:-)
2009-12-31 09:30:01

Supra, Aesop, Ira

There are only two basic concepts used by many to describe a cultural point of view.

Culture Conservative (from the word order preservation / patriot / nationalist / mono-culturalist) and culture Marxist  (internationalist / multiculturalists / cosmopolitan / globalist).

Although the majority of humanists but also many liberals are anti-nationalists, and are therefore by definition culture Marxists. One promotes either multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) or monoculture (nationalist), there is nothing in between, even though most do not dare to admit this yet. Well, there's the multi-culture without Islam as a middle ground.

However, it is possible that IT does not meet the criteria for a Marxist/Communist all internationalists being nothing but cultural Marxists.

It's also a known fact that Gateavisa is an anarcho-Marxist newspaper and NOT an anarchist newspaper. Anarchism can be both Marxist-oriented and nationalist-oriented. Gateavisa is far from nationalistic as one can get;)

Old definitions often do not apply anymore. E.g. the British Tories who actually still dare to call themselves conservatives support cultural Marxism/multiculturalism and should be thus renamed.

One can not support cultural Marxism/multiculturalism and simultaneously call oneself conservative, although some might not agree with me:)

The majority on the right side have unfortunately not yet found out that one must defeat multiculturalism in order to defeat the Islamization; so many still see themselves as multiculturalists.

This will inevitably change, and become clearer to a greater extent for most people over the next decades, as the polarization will increase.

Sometime in the future, most will have to flag their point of view, one will have to make a choice: nationalism or internationalism.

Unfortunately, there is still much stigma attached to the word "nationalism" so I usually use the word culture conservative:)

2009-12-31 14:12:48

Lars M,

"Globalization and modernity are irreversible phenomena."

Classical multiculturalism drug propaganda. What does globalization and modernity have to do with mass Muslim immigration?

And you may not have heard and Japan and South Korea? These are successful and modern regimes even if they rejected multiculturalism in the 70's. Are Japanese and South Koreans goblins?

Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful and Islam is involved? The only historical example is in societies without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.).
I expect everyone to understand this. It is truly elementary.

What I can never understand is why multiculturalists (who traditionally have consisted of and/or have been supported by the labor movement) have failed to understand that multiculturalism will destroy the future welfare (as social cohesion/confidence/willingness to be taxed) that falls in line with the spread of multiculturalism?

Best case scenario for Europe is that we end up with a super-capitalist system such as the U.S. with large sub-class/class differences.
That does not sound very humanistic:) But then we are certainly not goblins anymore?