The Peaceful Political Expression Of Conservatism

A Google search shows over 5,000 references to The Brussels Journal and the Norway killer, Anders Breivik. Two of the most notable sources are the UK Guardian, and the German Spiegel Online. From these and others we find that Breivik's own writing contained references to material sourced from The Brussels Journal and another blog, The Gates of Vienna. From both venues the anonymous writer Fjordman is cited. The implication is that The Brussels Journal's political writings are in some way responsible for creating an intellectual ground leading to the murder of innocents.

Der Spiegel's Frank Patalong labels The Brussels Journal a window “into a “strange scene.” That is,

“, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel -- but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist. It is a "patriotic-nationalist" scene which detests the Nazis but is sympathetic - to the point of maintaining informal contacts -- to the Tea Party Movement in the US, to the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria, to the right-wing football fan group known as the Casuals and to the stridently anti-Muslim English Defence League.” [see footnote]

In addition, Patalong explicitly accuses Fjordman of being the “actual author of several hundred pages” of Breivik's manifesto, when in fact the latter merely cut and pasted the former's words into his own political treatise-collage.

The Guardian's Andrew Brown, as we stated previously, writes how “[Fjordman] has also written for The Brussels Journal, a fanatically anti-EU blog.” He then goes on:

“Obviously these people cannot be held responsible for the use to which their ideas were put. No matter how deranged a killer's ideas, he still needs a deranged personality to put them into action. But anyone tempted to take them seriously should consider what were almost Breivik's last words: "For the last three years I have been working full time on a cultural conservative work which will help to develop and market these political ideas." “

The intentions of Patalong and Brown are clear. It is to delegitimize and in fact smear conservative political writing. No more and no less. It is an attempt to silence political thought by associating political ideas with criminal acts. In Patalong's list of thought crimes, the most telling is his understanding that the very heterogeneous conservative voices at The Brussels Journal do have one thing in common: a dislike (Patalong uses the charged word “hostility”) of leftist liberalism.

No Brussels Journal author has called for, much less expressed a hope or longing for political violence. I myself have indicated that continued violence is what we can likely expect, but to say so is simply recognizing the world for what it is, and what it is becoming — a collection of individuals forming groups with no clear cultural-social-political homogeneity or bond. And that is the most anyone here has ever stated.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of Western civilization to our present well-being is democratic institutions that allow for peaceful political expression. Clearly political action cannot be grounded upon violence. It is, instead, the anarchist, the anti-political nihilist who champions civil discord, and who then justifies his actions in the name of revolutionary progress. The Brussels Journal and its writers exist within and argue for our continued civilized Western political tradition. To attempt to associate the Journal and its contributors with anarchic criminals is despicable.    


Remark from the editors: While it is not our intention to systematically deny every wild assertion or far-fetched guess about The Brussels Journal and its writers, and while we are not tracking every footstep of our contributors, we think it is highly improbable that any of our current authors have contacts with the English Defence League, the Casuals football fan group (whatever that may be) or the Austrian Freedom Party, contrary to what Mr. Frank Patalong from Der Spiegel suggests.


Remember Huxley's Brave New World and the unsuccessful experiment with alpha-males on an island. The drivel for nietschian creatures is still well alive in the 21st century.

Fjordman again

It is very hard to preserve a peaceful image once you have let Fjordman publish "Can we coexists with the left?" on your blog. Do you all agree with his article?

We return to the conclusion paragraph of his article. As we see different interpretations from a quick read-through it might be good to see what he actually says.

"In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War.

There are two different interpretations of this text. One is that he places himself as a hypothetical person holding conservative values, and analyses the current situation from that perspective, and derives that a hypothetical person holding conservative values HAVE to resist and as a consequence "this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly". 

But isn't this hypothetical person himself? He sets up the premises under which you have to make resistance, and shows that they are fulfilled for the hypothetical conservative person. But all these premises are fulfilled for himself as well:

1. He believes in the western world

2. He thinks that the left will destroy western civilization as we know it

3. Given the rest of the article, he thinks the left is poisoning him.

He sets up premises for when violence will become necessary. He fulfills these premises. If he believes his own logic he thinks violence is necessary.

@ der alte schwed

Your comment was readable until the 2 expressions in YOUR conclusion "violence is necessary"

Fjordman is afraid of violence, he doesn't think it's necessary.

Revolutionary leftists and extremist muslims propagate violence, Fjordman never did.


He might be afraid of violence and still advocate it. Most western countries were not happy with WW2, but saw that it was necessary. There is no contradiction beween fear and belief in necessity when it comes to violence.

Take this hypothetical text:

"Some times you can compromise and sometimes you cannot. If a man has taken hostages you have to resist.  It doesn’t matter in the long run whether he did this because he he had some political motive. The bottom line is that if we don't do anything is: the hostages die. That's why the police mission is likely to get ugly."

From such a text I would read that he supports the police killing the hostage taker, but at the same time disliking violence and being angry that the hostage taker for propagating it.

I read Fjordman's text in the same way.


That's not a 'dicussion,' that's a dialectic process you witnessed.

And you have as much chance as getting a cogent reply from that der.alte.schwed as from this one.

@ Capo

Thanks for that "Findling". I didn't know about it.

I knew it was marxist dialectic but I wanted to keep it simple. eople have forgotten communism and their techniques. It's coming back with great strides.


RE: Conspiracies

Truth be told I don't really believe Breivik was part of a left-wing or anti-conservative conspiracy.  I follow Occam's Razor.  As any security expert will tell you, the "lone wolf" is more difficult to guard against than any other threat.  People belive in conspiracies because they give order to a chaotic and seemingly random world, even if evil always appears to be in charge.  But just like Loughner's ramblings about the Obama administration caused his actions to be blamed on Sarah Palin and/or the Tea Party, so too will Breivik's lunacy be used as a cudgel to stifle debate in Europe even further.  Contrary to the belief of a number of people, Breivik has only set back the efforts of Fjordman, Bat Ye'or, et al...

Harpies in Concert.

Here, we see the Progs mobilize in a rage of denial; see no evil.

On the long march to Utopia, the Left rejects the world for what it is -- wants no part of it.  "Terrence, this is stupid stuff..."

Perservere, TBJ.


"No Brussels Journal author has called for, much less expressed a hope or longing for political violence."

Compare the following text by Fjordman published in BJ in 2010n under the title  Can We Coexist With The Left?

"In many cases you can compromise, but in others you cannot. If somebody tries to poison you then you have to resist. It doesn’t matter in the long run whether those who do this do so because they deliberately want to kill you or because they are fools who accidentally kill you while intending to do something noble. The bottom line is: You die. You cannot be slightly dead, just like you cannot be slightly pregnant. If the Leftists and the Globalists have their way then our civilization will die, plain and simple. That’s why this ongoing struggle is likely to get ugly, because no compromise is possible. Since similar ideological struggles are taking place throughout the Western world, this situation could trigger a pan-Western Civil War."

Fjordmans clearly answers NO to the question "Can We Coexist With The Left?"  and then he points to leftist and globalist such as the children on Utöy as a deadly threat, That is a call for violence that Breivik clearly understood.  


@ der.alte.schwed

There is a difference between being afraid a civil war will ensue and calling for a civil war.

I am a conservative anti-European Flemish nationalist and I don't consider this text by Fjordman as a call to war.

Maybe you are too eager to accuse Fjordman, like so many leftists, but Fjordman's language is quite clear in this text. 



Fjordman questions is "can we coexist with the left"?

Do you maintain that his answer to that question is yes?

If not how is that coexistence to be ended?

Moreover, if someone is threatening to kill you,  then it generaly aknowledged that you have a right to defend yourself, with deadly violennce if required.

So what Fjordman is arguing is (1) the left must be eliminated (2) Deadly violence against the left is warranted. This is what Brevijk acted on. Why aint you happy?

@ der.alte.schwed

Fjordman cites the facts and poses the questions...

You are imagining the answers for him, and accusing him for the answers you put in his mouth.

Typical marxist discussion technique, we have seen it all and heard it all before, forget it old Swede...


And according to you what answer does Fjordman give to his question: "Can we co-exist with the left"?


@ der alte schwed

He doesn't, he leaves it up to the reader to think.

BTW there is no real answer and real solution to that question today since our politicians have completely demolished our society.

We will suffer the consequences for a long time to come and it could end up in civil war if the politicians continue to do nothing.


But of course. It's a rhetorical question. He does not answer the question explicitly, but there is only one interpretation possible. "We will die", "no compromise is possible", "poisoned", "ethnic cleansing", "Others should submit to [the leftists'] rule or be violently squashed", "We’d be happy to be rid of them, because to us they’re nothing but parasites and/or oppressors"

Your argumentation says that rhetorical questions such as "Should we accept being treated as animals?" simply ask the reader to reflect and does not contain an implicit answer. Why do we use rhetorical questions: because it is a powerful technique to let the reader/listener fill out the missing parts.

So I ask you, given what Fjordman thinks of the left's motives. How can you possibly come to another conclusion than that coexistence is impossible? And given the violent touch of his rhetoric, and that his rhetoric is based on letting the reader fill out the blanks, doesn't he have an obligation to at least state "we need to avoid violence, but..." 

@ der alte schwede

Since Fjordman never propagated violence he shouldn't defend himself because YOU made those conclusions.

One doesn't defend himself for something he never said.


our technique is old and well used, but I have seen this hundreds of times, no deal.


OK, so what has he said? Your view is that no one has ever said anything that is not stated explicitly in a text. 

I think that actually your definition is somewhat broader, just as mine. I think we both can agree that if you have something which follows more or less directly from your text, that is also actually in the text. If you say "We said that we were going outdoors when the sun came out, and now it is shining" that definitely also contains the statement "we should go out". Similarly a question which is obviously rhetorical such as "Should we accept being treated as animals?" can be interpreted as having been answered in the obvious way (in this case, "no").

If we agree with the above paragraph the question becomes the following: is the conclusion that violence is reasonable (if not good or perfect) a conclusion which follows from Fjordman's text?

My answer is yes. He says that the left wants to kill our civilization and do ethnic cleansing on Western Europeans, that they poison and conduct violence on citizens like him. From this we can conclude that the coexistence question is rhetorical and answered "no".  Also, in almost all legal systems, a right to resitance follows from such acts as he claims the left is doing so we could say we are done: if he does not explicitly rule out violence, he supports it.

But he goes more explicit that. He actually says that things will get ugly ahead, as conservatives will have to resist the attempts on killing their civilization. In this, he clearly expresses understanding of the violence, and since we know he shares their premises, seems to be thinking along the same lines. 

@ der alte schwed

I know you want to find elements for helping the witchhunt against Fjordman and TBJ

Forget it, Fjordman never called for violence and your 200 times repeated comments are not going to change that fact, end of discussion.


"The Brussels Journal is a project set up by European journalists and writers to restore three values that are so lacking in the so-called “consensus-culture” of contemporary Europe: Freedom, the quest for Knowledge, and the Truth".

Since you do not consider arguments of impeccable logic, in what way will it the be possible to establish truth and to aquire trustworthy knowledge?

Or do you not agree with the BJ project's aim?


"He leaves it up to the reader to think". And what other conclusion that violent resistence is warranted can be drawn for his text. Did Breivik commit an error when his thinking based on Fjordman led him to murders of the left?

Is there anything in Fjordman's text that speaks against violence?


You have to choose. If you are against violence you must distance your self from Fjordman. If you support him you thin it is ok to put up arguments that leads to the conclusion that violence is right.


It would also be interesting to know what Geerts Wilders thinks about Fjordman's text.

False Flag Action?

I am not prone to conspirational paranoia.  However, I followed the events in Oslo and Utoeya in real-time from when the bomb exploded.  My first instinct when I learned that 2 people had been reported dead and 7 injured (therefore early on in the massacre), was that the culprit would turn out to be an ethnic Norwegian and a "far-right extremist".  I shuddered at the thought because I could see the center-left and left using that as an opportunity to regroup, given the expansion of conservatism across northwestern Europe. 


Breivik was a lone wolf out for himself, not unlike Jared Loughner.  Any ideological struggle will do.  Revolutionary socialism helped the egos and demons of Carlos the Jackal, Che Guevara, the Red Army Faction, etc. 


The difference is that intellectual conservatives don't identify with or apologize for mass-murderers who act in the name of a supposed common cause. 


Back to the false flag question: isn't is possible?  "Operation Northwoods" was real.  With the integrity of the EU in peril, and a combination of grassroots free-market and anti-immigration/multiculturalism movements threatening to topple one left-wing government after the next, a lot of stakeholders stand to lose a lot. 


I don't think it's an offensive question to ask, especially when people only claim that 9/11 was perpetrated by the CIA and/or the Mossad.

Reply to "False Flag Action?"

Interesting theory!  I congratulate you to the realization that Anders Breivik's action puts your militant conservative movement in a very exposed position. He acts on the ideas that have been put forward by Fjordman and others. By taklng Fjordman's proposals to their logical endpoint Breivik has demonstrated how toxic this type of thinking is.

If I were a militant conservative I would start some earnest rethinking. What is it in your program  that  lead to this inexcusable outcome? What it is time for is some constructive thinking on your part of how people in Europe can come  to a peaceful coexistance instead of resorting to mass-deportations or genocide (see

Hitler's racial theory was fully abondoned only when the pictures from the concentration camps demonstrated what his thinking amounted to. Will Utöy similarily spell the doom for militant conservatism?


Why believe anything...

Who knows what will come of it? Yet I am always skeptical of the idea of deep conspiracies. These days, with our ubiquitous media, and so many competing factions, and the possibility of celebrity and instant fame, it is harder to keep secrets—especially when these actions must by nature include many people to pull off if they are conspiracies.

Also, people's “connect the dots” thinking tends to be rather prosaic, and revolves around those they already suspect. Think of 9-11. The only time people ever see a building fall is during a controlled explosion. But what they are watching is the effect of gravity, an effect that pulls everything straight down, toward the center (of the earth). So when WTC started to collapse, it, surprise, went straight down, toward the center of the earth. Therefore it must have been due to hidden explosives. After all, it couldn't be that all large structures fall straight down due to gravity, could it?

And who was responsible? For those who were anti-Bush it had to be Dick Cheney and the CIA (the VP because because Bush was not smart enough to pull it off). For those who believe the Jews are behind everything, it had to be the Mossad. And so forth and so on. Arabs hijacking airplanes? Nope. That's definitely out of the question.

This is not to say that there are no conspiracies, ever. But in a time when the most powerful man in the world, the president of the United States, can't get a bimbo hummer in a White House closet without the world knowing about it, we should be skeptical of ignoring the obvious and opting for special intrigue.


Seconding Mpresley's Statement

The liberal establishment is nothing if it is not crassly opportunistic.  It should come as no surprise that spokesmen for that establishment should exploit the bloody opportunity wrought by the Norwegian mass murderer to denounce and smear people and institutions that they have been denouncing and smearing all along.  Nothing I have ever read at The Brussels Journal could, in any way, be construed as a call for violence against anyone.  Indeed, there is probably a consensus among contributors to the Journal that the USA’s military presence in the Muslim world is no longer useful, even if it were justified in the beginning, and that the US armed forces should withdraw from those places and stop killing Muslims; I imagine that contributors to the Journal are also troubled over NATO’s assault on Libya and its legal, sitting regime.  In my recent article about Nicolas Berdyaev, I praised Berdyaev for his abhorrence of violence.  Conservatism is not about violence; it is about argument and persuasion.  The actions of madmen who randomly quote us in insane discourses have nothing to do with our vision of civic order.

Your view of Fjordman and Kapitein Andre?

You write "Conservatism is not about violence; it is about argument and persuasion". If you want to ban calls for violence or encouragement of violence from your site then it is time to distance yourself from Fjordman's text quoted above and to ask Kapitein Andre to change his picture.

@ mpresley

Patalong is the chief/webmaster of Spiegel-on-line since 1999.

It's normal that such an establishments tool supporter tries to demolish Fjordman, TBJ and Gates of Vienna, the author and the sites are much too uncomfortable for the establishment, certainly for the undemocratic and wounded European establishment.

I guess we have to show them that we cannot be intimidated by their lies.

Cheers to all independant thinkers, I feel refreshed.