oyvindstrommen.be traktningar

The Baron and his Court.

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 disappointly 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 – namely “Bizarro Fjordman”, assumably because I am the evil reflection of Fjordman in a dark, alternative universe. Now, 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. Now, that is creative. The self-acclaimed 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? It is of course 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 should not gain you many friends, although it does seem to have done to 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, per chance? – is of course 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 within 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”.

Amusingly, Gates of Vienna also claims that I am against freedom of speech. The claim comes from a Baron which seems to have somewhat amicable feelings towards Geert Wilders, a politician who has suggested that the Qu’ran should be outright banned. It is a claim which 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 repugnant 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… 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 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.

–

Update, 18. November 2011, 20:40: Oh, and I might add, it is hardly difficult to find examples of “aggressive nationalism” from Fjordman or other friends of you, Right Honourable Lord, since you so eagerly call for me to provide them. In a strongly anti-Western – yes, I said it, anti-Western – essay published in your barony, your socalled “brilliant scholar and fine writer” 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, 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.

You see, Right Honourable Lord, unlike yourself I have actually read the articles and books written by my political opponents. Your message is clear. It is indeed a message of “aggressive nationalism”.

Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 3:52 pm • fascisme, eurofascisme, høyrepopulisme, innvandringsmotstand • RSS 2.0 feed • leave a response or trackback