Peder Nøstvold Jensen har ikke haft noget læt liv efter at medierne og venstresiden udpegede ham til Breiviks insiprator. For hver eneste “hvid” terrorhandling spoles det tilbage og storyen bekræftes.
En “longread,” jeg ville have ignoreret hvis ikke den handlede om venner af mig – Peder Fjordman og Edward (Gates of Vienna) – og mennesker, jeg har mødt adskillige gange. Den siger lige så meget om The Guardian, som om dem, og det er ikke småting. Den er smækfuld af fejl!
Der er ingen tvivl om, at vi er i et politisk opgør, der vil fortsætte til “last man standing.” Det er kun lige begyndt. Medier skifter ikke politisk standpunkt før de bliver tvunget “under galgen”, som svenskerne siger. Eller før statstilskuddene udebliver og før der ikke længere er penge i løgne, og den tid er sådan noget unge, der går ind i politik, tror kommer, men unge mennesker ” har saa mange sære Ting for,” som Prædikeren siger (7:29).
Venstrepressen fyrer stadig med alle kanoner, men de har allerede tabt til virkeligheden. Forleden New York times forvrøvlede artikel om Sverige, som Bent Jensen skriver om, i dag The Guardian. Artiklen er ren pegen fingre, injurierende påstande og udokumenteret bedreviden, og så er forftteren endda Andrew Brown, der har skrevet Sverigesbogen Fishing in Utopia. Edward May forsøger at tælle alle fejlene i artiklen. The Grauniad er mindre venlig slang for The Guardian.
Fjordman, whose real name is Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, now lives in obscurity in provincial Norway. He outed himself as the man behind the pseudonym to a Norwegian tabloid in the weeks following the massacre – but managed to avoid testifying at Breivik’s trial, thanks to the intervention of high-powered lawyers paid for by the Middle East Forum, a rightwing American group that would later sponsor Tommy Robinson – real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – in Britain. Nonetheless, Jensen’s influence on Breivik, however indirect, had been considerable.
Gates of Vienna was, and still is, run by Edward “Ned” May, an American computer programmer from Washington DC. It was among the first in a wave of blogs that urged the US to war after the shock of 9/11, and almost certainly the most fanatically anti-Muslim. It takes its name from the siege of Vienna in 1683, when an Ottoman Turkish army was defeated by a Polish-led one. Its essential thesis is that this was only one battle in a long war and that Europe and its civilisation are constantly threatened by a Muslim invasion.
Jensen is unusual among Eurabia believers in that he has actually had some experience of the Muslim world and even speaks Arabic. He is the son of a socialist politician in Norway and studied Arabic in Cairo – his earlier university studies in Bergen had included English (which he writes fluently), Russian, Arabic and Middle Eastern history. In 2000, he had been interviewed by the local paper back in Norway, and spoke enthusiastically about his hosts in Egypt: “Outside the tourist areas, you meet friendly, hospitable, curious and open people who want to get to know you. I have been part of their daily lives. We’ve been invited to their homes, and talked and smoked shisha together.”
That was Jensen’s first encounter with Islam, and he was still in Cairo at the time of the 9/11 attacks. He says he saw then that there were some Muslims who celebrated the slaughter, and he also saw that this wasn’t reported in the Norwegian papers. The next year, he worked for the Norwegian Refugee Council in the disputed city of Hebron in the occupied West Bank. Unusually among Scandinavians who have worked with Palestinians in Israel, he identified with the Israelis. He narrowly escaped a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, at a bar where two of his colleagues had been killed in another attack the previous year. The experience cemented his growing fear and loathing of Islam.
The idea of the great replacement had its origin in a blatantly racist French novel of the 1970s, The Camp of the Saints, in which France is overthrown by an unarmed invasion of starving, sex-crazed Indian refugees when the French army is not prepared to fire on them. The moral of the book is that western civilisation can only be saved by a willingness to slaughter poor brown people. Steve Bannon, among the founders of the rightwing news site Breitbart and a former adviser to President Trump, has referred to it repeatedly.
The anti-immigrant right had good reasons for separating itself from the anti-Muslim right. If the logic of the “Vienna school” – Jensen, Spencer and Geller, May and Littman – led inexorably to civil war and the righteous slaughter of Muslims and their leftie enablers, then most of the right shrank back from it. Commenters such as Douglas Murray and Caldwell quite genuinely believed that Breivik was insane, and that his actions had no relation to the ideas that he espoused. There may in this have been an element of self-deception, but it is also a testimony to the sort of instinctive, unthinking decency we all need sometimes to rescue us from the consequences of our ideas. It seemed that some kind of pragmatism would prevail.The myth of Eurabia: how a far-right conspiracy theory went mainstream