The best of us or a master of taqiya?



Fjordman’s dad:
the source of Fjordie’s genes
and loyalties…



I like boasting in the internet about my psychological profiles of some bloggers. But in the case of Fjordman, who has been recently outed as Peder Jensen, it seems that I failed miserably.

According to several sites that have reproduced the physiognomy of Fjordman’s father, who looks like an Ashkenazi Jew, it now seems that Fjordman deceived all of us by making us believe that he was of pure Scandinavian ancestry. If Fjordman’s Jewishness is corroborated in the future, “Hyperborean Talmudist” would have been a more appropriate penname than the one that the Norwegian Peder Jensen chose since he began his blogging career in 2005. A blogger commented:

You would expect a name like Fjordman to be used by a true Viking. I have noticed on French internet political forums that commenters who pose as Frenchmen while defending the Tel Aviv point of view usually go under historical names such as Clovis, Charlemagne, Viking, Gaulois, Vercingetorix… At least, Fjordman is a Norwegian citizen. It would have been funny to find out that he actually lived in Tel Aviv.

Jews have been the main competitors of Whites in the last couple of centuries, which explains why they have had a history of crypsis or passing as gentiles: for example, by changing their first and last names, while in fact they maintain their Jewish identity and loyalty toward their tribe, even the most secularized Jews.

What would happen if a more mainstream source confirms that Peder Jensen is indeed Jewish on his father’s side (I am not talking of being considered Jew by his local synagogue but of his ultimate loyalty)? I believe that Fjordman/Jensen would pass to history as a master of taqiya who bamboozled even his closest friends in the counter-jihad movement.

A few days ago Ned May, better known for his penname of “Baron Bodissey,” wrote a eulogy to Fjordman of which I will quote a couple of sentences:

Fjordman began posting essays at Gates of Vienna in the spring of 2006. I first met him in person about a year later during my trip to Copenhagen. We have encountered each other again over the years during some of my visits to Europe. In the process we became good friends, and remained in correspondence until he made his momentous decision the other day to visit the police…

For the record: Fjordman is the best of us [bold in the original]. He is not just a brilliant scholar and a fine writer, but also the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met. He is a man of utmost integrity, and it shines through in his dealings with others as well as in the millions of words he has written.

A man of utmost integrity? Really? Fjordman announced that, because he wanted to stonewall all discussion on the Jewish Question with people like me at the Baron’s Gates of Vienna, he asked the Baron to close comments on every future essay authored by Fjordie. In the thread of that bizarre announcement the “Baron” commented:

Some of them have even floated the theory that Fjordman himself is a Jew… The Jew-obsessed White Nationalists believe Fjordman is at best a crypto-Jew… Now do you see how absurd your [Cumpa—a commenter who disliked the closing of the comments] preoccupation is, given the above circumstances?

Of course: nationalists are no more “obsessed” with Jews than counter-jihadists are “obsessed” with Muslims. The grim fact is that both, Muslims and Jews, are undermining Western civilization from within. However, the Baron’s words can only mean that, despite his close friendship with Fjordman, Fjordie concealed a vital piece of biographical info from him: his Jewishness!

Vital, because as those who have read The Culture of Critique appreciate, the Jewish intellectual movements that have hurt Western interests have had the nasty little habit of using a gentile face as the perfect PR for an unsuspecting public. Hadn’t the “Baron” Ned May or even myself been so trusting with the Jews we would have paid attention to warnings such as this one last year:

I conclude that Fjordman may not himself be a Norwegian as he claims but rather just another crypto-Jew hiding under a pseudonym that belies his true identity.

Again, we need independent confirmation besides his dad’s pic. But for the moment it is worth citing what other nationalists are starting to write after Fjordman was outed as Peder Jensen. In Raider of Arks, a recently opened blog, Svigor wrote (TBFKA = “the blogger formerly known as”):

This is why I don’t trust people like Jensen, the blogger formerly known as Fjordman… Because they turn out to be f[ucking] liars (if memory serves, TBFKA Fjordman either denied Ashkenazi ancestry, or avoided the question), or cowards, or both… I don’t usually go in for accusing guys like TBFKA Fjordman of being Ashkenazis, for various reasons, but in this case the J’Accuse folks seem to have been right. They’ll definitely be making hay out of this one for years to come.

Contrast Svigor’s J’Accuse with the Baron’s eulogy of Fjordman as “the most decent, gentle, and humane person I have ever met.” In the Raider of Arks thread I commented:

In the past I had banged my head trying to figure out why on earth wasn’t Fjordman willing to advance even a single argument defending his philo-Semitism when challenged. It made no sense!

In various blogs Fjordie never, ever entered the arena on the Jewish Question (JQ). He simply dismissed the subject. Or, like Larry Auster, he merely casted aspersions and attempted to silence those who dared to bring up any aspect of the JQ. In Raider of Arks Svigor replied:

That’s what I was getting at about how to suss them out.

Why is it so important to suss non-gentiles out? Fjordman for one has authored dozens of influential in-depth essays where he ignores the JQ en bloc—an inexplicable phenomenon when we were under the assumption that he was a true Viking. At the same time Fjordman has claimed that “the ‘Jewish threat’ in the 1930s was entirely fictional, whereas the ‘Islamic threat’ now is very real” (“Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War,” Brussels Journal, 28 March 2006, reprinted in Fjordie’s book Defeating Eurabia).

Of course, exactly the reverse is true: Jews have caused infinitely more havoc to the West than Muslims in contemporary times, as any knowledgeable person of the JQ knows (see e.g. my collection of blog entries here and here).

This can only mean that the counter-jihadists at Gates of Vienna (GoV) have distorted their minds to see the colors of life as a photographic negative. For instance, a Swedish GoVer friend of Fjordman—another half-Jew?—has labeled nationalists who, in good faith, want to discuss the JQ at GoV as “defecating dogs” (cf. here) when exactly the reverse is true. In the aftermath of the outing of Fjordman, Scott said:

Attacking multiculturalism without attacking Jewish power is like attacking shit on the floor while ignoring the incontinent dog.

Scott has thus revealed into a positive the GoVer’s photographic negative. Attacking Jewish power is necessary because we cannot ignore the role of several Jewish associations in the opening of the gates for massive, non-Aryan immigration into Western countries, especially the United States—precisely what I said at GoV that infuriated Fjordman to the point of requesting the closing of all comments in his future essays.

Half-Jew Takuan Seiyo had done exactly the same thing with his essays at the Brussels Journal: closing his threads when challanged about the JQ.

What should gentiles do with such Jewish arrogance in the counter-jihad movement? Lindsay Wheeler nailed it at Age of Treason:

Baron Bodissey with his blind obsession with things Israel is just a deceived old fool. Steve Sailor is a man without courage. Truth requires Manliness. And the Roman Catholic Church has the “Fear of the Jews.” Without the suppression of the Jews, there is going to be no redress. Jews are hopelessly and intrinsically infected with Messianism. It can’t be helped… I want all to note all these Jews, Lawrence Auster, David Horowitz, Fjordman, et al, are all fomenting “anti-Jihad,” talking about being anti-Muslim. Aren’t Muslims a Semitic people? If there is consistency, wouldn’t Europeans be against all Semites? Why allow one group to reign and run all over free and restrict another? Does that make sense? If one is to be anti-Muslim, one must also be anti-Juden.

The Jews have to be suppressed if we are going to save our culture. Being anti-Jihad (whatever that means), but defending and upholding the freedom of the Jews, is hypocritical. We are being played. We are supposed to act like attack dogs by our Jewish handlers. Fjordman has been outed as one. We have hundreds more.

But the sad truth is that gentile counter-jihadists like the “Baron” Ned May, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders will continue to adore their beloved Fjordie.

4 Replies on “The best of us or a master of taqiya?

  1. Yes. The jews established their pattern of deception when they instigated the Romans into crucifying Jesus. They have followed the same pattern ever since. Nowadays they have many layers between them and those who actually get their hands dirty in doing their work.

    They always hide behind stooges and useful idiots. Changing their names is just one of their many deceitful ways.

    1. Thanks Brandon for your several comments in this blog! At Age of Treason Daybreaker has just said:

      It’s impossible to escape the impression that Fjordman took care to conceal a personal genetic / ethnic interest that was highly relevant to the issues of immigration and culture that he discussed, and that he abused the trust of those who defended him as an objective voice.

      Because his handle tended to give an impression of his ethnic background that was misleading, I think we now have to say that every post and comment by Fjordman is a bit suspect…

  2. It doesn’t matter.

    Well, Geert Wilders might matter. It’s long odds though. I am not expecting standard politics to result in solutions to this situation, although it would be much for the better if it did work out that way. For one thing, if that happened, it would be proof the problem is not so critical – that it does not have a lethal stranglehold on the Western nations. In which case, opposing it is not so critical a task either.

    But in general: counter-jihad blogging is pointless. I had been toying around drafting bits of an essay about Mangan and GoV both banning me, here are some relevant bits:


    In the end, all this blogstuff is just letting off steam. It does not accomplish anything of substance. Oh, sure, there are occasions for counting coup – diverting journalists on to the path of a scandal like Rathergate, for example. But as the psychosphere adjusts to the existence of these fora, their effect diminishes; they’re just talk, and the journalists and politicians find they can follow or ignore them, as it suits them. One need merely consider the continuing dampening of the Fast and Furious matter, or the utter lack of curiosity about the birth certificate, or the utter refusal to actually notice any of the multitude of economically disastrous facts Karl Denninger has been pointing out. If the psychosphere doesn’t want to hear something the blogs are saying, it won’t – and if the blogs aren’t heard, they might as well not exist at all. That’s their only power: to speak.

    Speaking alone is not going to resolve the approaching crises.

    What will have a distinct and notable effect in, for example, opposing and reversing Islamization (to say nothing of the other tides of barbarism), is one and only one thing: willpower. People who have the will to go ahead and do something about it, go ahead and stop it, go ahead and make the people they don’t want living nearby pick up and leave. The will to do this while also not caring what Leviathan might try to do in response – or, better, being prepared to parry such action. You don’t need to study “Reliance of the Traveler” for five years and be fully conversant on every last point of Islamic doctrine and why it is corrosive to the society you want to live in to obtain such willpower. You only need to be pissed, and have a few pals who are pissed too, and maybe the knowledge that there are other groups of guys like you elsewhere.

    What has the counter-jihad specifically accomplished? They’ve raised awareness. Great. What does that do? How have Western cultural institutions been strengthened by that? How have ordinary Westerners been emboldened to take pride in themselves and be willing to discriminate? How many Muslims have been expelled, or by how much has the immigration quota been reduced?

    The counter-jihad is only negative. They are only against something, never for. They never say specifically what they want to advance, never say what they want to do, never lay out their plans to advance to a glorious future – instead it is only what they want to stop. This is a dead and sterile attitude, the same as William Buckley’s “standing athwart history yelling ‘stop!'”, and can be expected to be just as big a failure.

    _MY_ goal is that each European nation should be reserved only for its people as they were circa 1900-1950, that individual freedom to live and work for the citizens of these nations should be comparable to that in the USA of Calvin Coolidge, that all adult males should be familiar with the use of weapons and proud of that fact, that monogamous families should be the norm, and finally that they should be putting their excess energies into projects such as space travel. This could be elaborated a lot – a social class system where people know their place and are secure _and happy_ in it, while also having a chance to escape it if they wish to; a certain level of protectionism, to help assure employment of some sort to everyone in the country, even those who are less capable than the millions of hungry Chinese (because otherwise why have a country at all); well-defined property rights leading to minimal pollution and well-maintained countrysides; judicial and law enforcement systems set up with sensible incentive structures to minimize corruption; a maximum of government devolved to local and provincial levels, as the closer it is to the people the more likely it is to be properly responsive – etc. etc. etc.

    This sort of thing would require a revolution to implement – both in tearing down the existing system of government, and in ripping out all the entrenched interests and lobbies that benefit from the current system. People – and the nation in general – are better off without government-monopolized pensions and health care, no matter how much it hurts to take it away once it has been given out, it still must be taken away. But you’re not going to get people who can accept that until a whole generation has grown up without it, and can see from the historical example why it was such a bad idea.

  3. Interesting what Daybreaker just said here:

    The counter-jihadist alternative approach has crashed and burned. It started with the idea that defending a key White interest, not being colonized by Islamic hordes, could best be pursued by never defining Whites as the group to be protected. Rather than risk defending Whites and being tarred as racist, the movement would be all about culture, and it would define Islam as an aggressive and bad culture that had to be stopped, and that would be sufficient, supposedly.

    Counter-jihadism proceeded quickly to Jewish and quasi-Jewish colonization. It went on to the EDL flying the Star of David and defining itself in terms of the defense of Israel but not the defense of Whites. It lead to splits, as allowing some Jews to set up their own power structure within the movement lead to branch-stacking and all the familiar games, and any resistance to this was defined as anti-Semitism. It leads to laughably inadequate, incoherent intellectual positions, that could only be defended by copious use of “shut up!”

    It’s not that the counter-jihadist approach wasn’t radical enough: even if you took it to the extreme, bloody radicalism of Anders Behring Breivik, it never got around to defending Whites as such. The whole thing was and is rotten at the root, and nothing good will come of it.

    We’ve got to stand by each other, explicitly and firmly, as Whites, from Tasmania to Canada and all round the world. Because we are all under attack.