I recently published a book in Norwegian attacking the counterjihadist movement, and the naiveté shown towards it by, for instance, Norwegian media. This has annoyed certain bloggers, including Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna, who promptly decided to attack me.
Normally, I would not bother answering an article attacking me at Gates of Vienna. It’s a waste of time. But this time, Edward S. May – or “Baron Bodissey,” as he likes calling himself – really disappoints me. He calls me a Stalinist. It’s disappointingly uncreative, in light of the words friends of Peder (Fjordman) Jensen have previously been inclined to describe me with. I have been called a ‘Bolshevik’, a ‘vile communist animal’, an ‘infiltrator’ and a ‘foaming fanatic’; not to speak of my favourite – ‘Bizarro Fjordman’, presumably because I am the evil reflection of Fjordman in a dark, alternative universe. I’ve always liked dark, alternative universes. For instance, I just can’t wait to get started on the new game in the Elder Scrolls series, Skyrim.
In light of these creative terms, ‘Stalinist’ and ‘left-wing extremist’ are simply not very impressive. After all, I’ve seen comments in newspaper debates using my supposed ‘lack of personal hygiene’ as an argument. And I’ve been likened to Senator Joseph McCarthy, as well. That’s creative. The self-declared Baron, whose demesne is inhabitated by a number of extremist internet idiots, must be suffering from a writer’s block. It’s rather sad, really.
Why are they so angry? Because I have dared to point out that Peder Jensen’s thinking is fascist. “That can’t be!” claims Gates of Vienna, and it must be an unfounded claim, proving – thus – that I am not merely a fool, but a lone Stalinist (in fact, I’m sure that being lonely is quite common for Stalinists these days, clinging on to ideological idiocy from the past certainly won’t win you many friends, although it does seem to have done the trick for certain essayists – as long as they merely update the ideological idiocy a tiny bit).
The problem for the Baron – should I address him as The Right Honourable Edmund S. May, perchance? – is that my claim that Fjordman is a fascist is not unfounded at all. In fact, I have used a standard definition of fascism from one of the leading researchers in the field, Roger Griffin, and I have compared the various elements of Fjordman’s writings to this definition. That article was posted on my own blog, but it was also posted at Little Green Footballs, an internet fiefdom much loathed by the inhabitants of the Baron’s barony. That might be worth pointing out, since the Right Honourable Lord and his minions have surely spotted my article. As I am – probably – nothing but a mere peasant who can be treated according to the Baron’s very whims, it is probably somewhat imprudent of me to point out the obvious. Yet, as one hadith seldomly quoted on Gates of Vienna reminds us: ‘The best jihad (a determined struggle, that is) is to speak truth in the face of a tyrant’.
Therefore, I will note the following: If you plan to refute my writings, it would probably serve you well to actually read them, and not merely pretend that you know what they are saying. Alas, I’m not too convinced about the Right Honorable Lord’s abilities to complete such a monstrous task. After all, I am what his friends at the Tundra Tabloids describes as nothing less than a ‘repugnant Norwegian’. In fact, they have even published a lovely picture of myself together with Marx, Stalin and other Communist leaders wearing party hats; abusing the work of a freelance photographer in the process. Count KGS, I presume that must be his title, thus shows a remarkable level of class.
In the light of this, I find it necessary to point out, that the task the Right Honourable Lord gives me, namely to find examples of “aggressive nationalism” from Fjordman is hardly a very demanding one. In a strongly anti-Western - yes, I said it, anti-Western - essay called “Preparing for Ragnarök”, published within the borders of The Honourable Lord’s own barony, the socalled “brilliant scholar and fine writer’, Peder (Fjordman) Jensen that is, has for instance noted the following:
Experience also tells us that if two or more different populations inhabit the same land, they will eventually mix. In combination, this means that the only way European civilization can flourish in the long run is if we have large territories specifically dedicated for people who are overwhelmingly of demographic European stock. In those cases where this has been lost it needs to be reestablished. Ideas matter, but culture primarily follows genes.
In the same essay he draws heavily upon a leading representative of the decidedly neo-fascist nouvelle droite movement, Guillaume Faye. In addition, he calls for us to become ‘great warriors’ in order to achieve this rebirth from ‘decadence, betrayal and suicidal tolerance’. That fear of mixing populations, that focus on culture as ‘primarily [following genes]’, that focus on ‘decadence’ and ‘betrayal’, the weight put on Whiteness, the call for warriors, the dreams of revolutionary change, and even the very suggestion that ‘those who have championed the toxic ideas of Multiculturalism and mass immigration of alien tribes [must] disappear with [them]’ – all of it – places Fjordman squarely within Roger Griffin’s widely used definition of fascism:
[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence.
In addition, it makes Peder (Fjordman) Jensen very much of an anti-American, although I am confident that he will claim the very opposite.
Examples such as this one are obviously somewhat problematic for the Baron and the citizens of his very own internet realm, since this particular “Stalinist” peasant has acquired a certain level of literacy, and thus is fully capable of actually reading the articles and books written by his political opponents. The message of Jensen - and for that matter of The Right Honourable Lord himself - are perfectly clear. It is indeed a message of “aggressive nationalism”.
The Baron seems to put somewhat less weight on the importance of reading, and thus - amusingly - claims that I am against freedom of speech. I would like to point out that the Right Honourable Lord himself seems to have rather amicable feelings towards the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a politician who has suggested that the Qu’ran should be outright banned; an amicability which does not seem to match entirely with the Lord’s concern with freedom of speech. More interestingly however, his claim that I am against such freedom seems to be based on a slight misunderstanding of the very concept of freedom of speech, leading the Right Honourable Lord to believe that freedom of speech means that he should be able to say whatever he wants whenever he wants and especially in newspapers owned by other people entirely.
The Right Honorable Lord might benefit from noting that I have in fact supported his freedom of speech, and also the freedom of speech of likeminded fools with and without titles of nobility. I have repeatedly pointed out that if we want to live in a free and democratic society, we will have to accept that people also are free to disseminate their disgusting ideas and – as Peder Jensen does – their dreams of a ‘native revolt’ to somehow cleanse Europe from Islam and instigate the process of Entjudung… I’m sorry, de-Eurabification.
On the other hand, I have pointed out that Norwegian newspapers are under no obligation to print such views, neither in their print editions, nor on the Internet, and that while I do not oppose extremist voices – such as Stalinists – being published, editors would benefit from not letting their newspapers being hijacked by extremists. In short, the Baron has every right to speak. And we have every right to not be listening.
In fact I have pointed out that Norwegian newspapers might benefit from adopting an editorial policy not too different from the one at… well… the Right Honourable Lord’s blog, Gates of Vienna, where comments are surely deleted and where – I quote – ‘comments are moderated; that is they must be pre-approved by the blog’s owners’. Thus, if I have attacked freedom of speech by suggesting that pre-moderation might be a good idea for Norwegian newspapers, I might point out that freedom of speech has long been abolished in the Baron’s lands. Am I therefore to conclude that the Right Honourable Lord himself is - indeed – a ‘Stalinist’?
Obviously, I do not make such a claim. After all, the Right Honourable Lord runs a fascist blog, not a Stalinist one, and his friends in Europe are neo-fascists such as the Vlaams Belang, not Stalinists such as the Norwegian Communist sect Tjen Folket and their youth department, Revolusjonær Kommunistisk Ungdom, groups which I – incidentally – criticize in the book the Right Honourable Lord has surely not read. To me, both variants of totalitarianism represent the darkest side of politics, ideas which should have been discarded long past.
The Right Honourable Lord – however – is less picky about choosing friends and allies. And that’s his problem. Not mine.