Forbilledlig av VG

Avisen VG legger til rette for at deres lesere selv kan bidra til å avsløre uryddighet i forvaltningen. Man får håpe at prosjektet «Hjelp oss å granske statsrådenes pengebruk» blir nominert til neste års SKUP-konkurranse slik at metoderapporten kan tjene som en leksjon for andre redaksjoner.

Faksimile VG.

Avisen nevner selv andre tilfeller der de også har invitert leserne bredt til å bidra med detaljert egen informasjon i store konkrete saker, og laget det man kan kalle «digitale torg med delt informasjon».

Dette prosjektet går imidlertid enda et skritt videre ved at avisen benytter offentlighetsloven til å skaffe avisen innsyn i store mengder dokumenter som redaksjonen vet at avisen selv ikke har ressurser til å undersøke godt nok.

VG åpner derfor for crowdsourcing slik at en udefinerbar, men stor mengde kunnskap, tidsressurser, dugnadsinnsats og metoder med mer som måtte befinne seg «der ute» blant folk kan fokusere på å avdekke mulige feil og kritikkverdige forhold som kan ligge hittil skjult og uavdekket i den dog åpent tilgjengelige informasjonen.

Dersom prosjektet gir resultater man kanskje ikke ville ha fått uten denne fremgangsmåten, kan det være grunn til å stille spørsmål ved om den erklærte åpenheten i norsk forvaltning egentlig er god nok.

Offentlighetsloven (navnet er formelt offentleglova*) har som hovedregel at alle dokumenter i forvaltningen skal være åpne og alle kan kreve innsyn (§ 3). Man kan også merke seg plikten til å gi innsyn i sammenstillinger fra databaser (§ 9) og plikten til å gi merinnsyn (§ 11), tross diverse bestemmelser om unntak fra innsyn.

Er offentlighetsloven blitt en sovepute for lovmakerne, forvaltningen og det som måtte finnes av kritisk presse?

Folk flest benytter seg ikke av innsyn. Man kan av og til oppfatte at selv forholdsvis oppegående folk, også enkelte som jobber i førstelinjetjenester/skranker/servicetorg i kommuner, tror innsynsretten etter offentlighetsloven er beregnet på og begrenset til pressefolk. Man kan uansett fastslå at dersom dette VG-prosjektet fører til flere avsløringer, er den norske åpenheten i forvaltningen, og praktiseringen av enhvers innsynsrett i ethvert dokument i et hvilket som helst offentlig organ, kanskje ikke godt nok praktisert.

Anders Anundsen. Foto: Stortinget.

Lederen i Stortingets kontroll- og konstitusjonskomité, Anders Anundsen (FrP), knuser muligens noens illusjoner når han avslører at kontrollørene selv ikke har mulighet til å lese alt av dokumenter i forvaltningen.

– Vi er helt avhengige av å få innspill om hvor vi skal lete i de dokumentene som vi skal gjennomgå. Mengden er så stor, at vi ikke har mulighet til å gå like grundig gjennom alle sammen, sier Anundsen. (VG).

Uansett nivå i forvaltningen så har ikke de oppnevnte kontrollørene, kontrollutvalg og revisorer, forutsetning for å avdekke alt av mulige lovbrudd, vennetildelinger og ukultur. De har ikke en gang tid til å skumlese gjennom mer enn en brøkdel av dokumenter. Og langt mindre har de ressurser til å gå bak dokumentene og sjekke realiteter som kan ligge bak et enkelt tall i en kolonne på en side i et omfattende dokument.

Det gjenstår å se om stortingspolitiker og dermed en av lovmakerne, Anders Anundsen (FrP), benytter kunnskapen sin om de formelle kontrollørenes utilstrekkelighet til å forbedre den lovpålagte åpenheten i forvaltningen.

Burde kanskje forvaltningen selv automatisk ha lagt ut visse typer dokumenter, for eksempel tildelingssaker, søkbare for enhver. Uten at en eventuell profesjonell redaksjon først hadde tatt initiativ til å be om innsyn i de konkrete dokumentene?

«Mer åpenhet», sa Jens. «Vaktbikkja» i Stortinget har selv erklært at de ikke har tid til å praktisere selv den «mindre åpenheten» som kan ligge bak statsminister Jens Stoltenberg sitt statement.

Hvorfor da ikke legge til rette for mer automatikk med crowdsourcing rundt dokumenter i forvaltningen?

Ballen er hos politikerne.

[polldaddy poll=6089357]


Bloggurat

Blogglisten

Mer:

*) Offentleglova har fått nynorsknavn fordi praksisen i det norske Stortinget har vært slik at målform på loven følger målformen til politikeren som er saksordfører for loven i Stortinget.

VG-redaktør Torry Pedersen: Sammen vet vi mer.

 

Annonse:

Intervju med Anders Behring Breivik

Det har vært noe debatt om media bør intervjue og slippe til terrorsiktede Anders Behring Breivik når restriksjonene på hans kontakt med omverdenen, herunder besøks- og medieforbud, en gang blir opphevet. Det vil skje en gang.

Det finnes allerede et 65 siders intervju med Anders Behring Breivik. Foretatt av ham selv. (Du finner utdrag av det gjengitt nederst i denne artikkelen. Kun mindre deler av svarene og enkelte navn fra hans oppvekst er redigert bort.)

Om man SKAL intervjue og når man KAN

Det at han selv allerede har spredd sine tanker og konklusjoner er også et moment media må ta innover seg i debatten om å intervjue eller fortie ham. I denne debatten bør man skille mellom før og etter en rettssak.

Mer om ham:

Faksimile Journalisten.

Jeg har litt sans for uttalelsen fra generalsekretær Per Edgar Kokkvold i Norsk Presseforbund, som sier til Journalisten.no:

– Man må være en idiot eller moralsk blindgjenger for ikke å se at det vil være en ekstrem belastning for de pårørende om Breivik blir intervjuet før rettssaken (min utheving), sier Kokkvold.

– Hensynet til dem bør gå foran informasjonsansvaret i dette tilfellet. Vi har ingen plikt til å formidle hva han mener.

Hovedbudskapet til motstanderne av å slippe ham til er at han nettopp ønsket å gjennom media og rettssaken få en arena å spre sitt budskap. Den arenaen ønsker ikke enkelte redaktører å være. Frykten for å bli brukt i et større bilde er årsaken til at nyhetsredaktør Stein Bjøntegård i NRK kategorisk avslår.

Jeg synes det må være helt greit for disse redaktørene å ha dette standpunktet, men da til evig tid og konsekvent. Hvis de er klare over at denne redselen for å bli brukt impliserer vidtrekkende konsekvenser, ikke bare når det gjelder denne personen, så har vi kanskje også bedre journalistikk i vente i enkelte redaksjoner?

Tiden vil vise om disse redaktørene mener det samme når andre medier (utenlandske eller norske) slipper det første intervjuet. Vil de fremdeles ha samme standpunkt eller kan de da fritt gjengi med henvisning til at «det var de andre mediene som mistet sin redaksjonelle integritet først, og vi bare gjengir hva de allerede har fortalt»?

Hvis det også innebærer en erkjennelse av at de ikke lenger har tilstrekkelig gode nok journalister i redaksjonen, men mer eller mindre ukritiske «mikrofonstativ» som er mer underholdere og eksponenter for personlig føleri og kikkermentalitet, kan redaktørenes nei kanskje også føre til satsing på mer undersøkende og analyserende journalistikk og mindre «infotainment» i noen redaksjoner?

Hovedbudskapet til de som vil intervjue ham er … Tja, det spørs vel alltid om det egentlig er salgstall, men det kan også være noen som faktisk har en ekte journalistisk trang til å belyse, analysere og informere.

For å gjøre valget enklere for enkelte redaktører, vil jeg publisere utdrag av intervjuet han gjorde med seg selv. Dermed kan journalister og redaktører som ikke har mer å bidra med enn å være «mikrofonstativ» uten kritiske oppfølgingsspørsmål og substansiell kompetanse spare seg bryet.

Jeg synes media gjerne kan intervjue ham en gang etter rettssaken, så lenge de klarer å finne en journalist som ikke henfaller til «følelsesmessig vås» og er mikrofonstativ, slik dessverre for mange som kalles journalister stadig opptrer overfor andre intervjuobjekter i nyhetsbildet.

Det kunne virkelig vært interessant å se et intervju mellom Anders Behring Breivik og en journalist som hadde lest seg opp og kunne forfølge eventuelle logiske resonnementer og -brister i svarene. Et fakta- og saksrettet intervju.

Gjennomlesing av hans manifest og svarene på ulike spørsmål i intervjuet viser manglende logisk sammenheng i svarene og manifestet. Også i «faktaopplysninger» motsier han seg selv ulike steder.

Det må være en drøm for en klartenkende revolverjournalist å parkere denne mannen ettertrykkelig og, om ikke for ham så for de som eventuelt måtte beundre hans intellektuelle kapasitet og analytiske evner, avdekke at manifestet og Anders Behring Breiviks tanker kun er forvirrede tanker av en som ikke kan ha stort mer enn en gullfiskhukommelse for å glemme hva han selv nettopp mente om noe han senere uttaler seg annerledes om.

Dette kan selvfølgelig også være uttrykk for at han stort sett har «klippet og limt» tanker og argumentasjon fra personer med noe ulike posisjoner, men mangler intellektuell evne til å se den manglende sammenhengen selv.

I tillegg dikter han på seg storhet. Ikke bare i sin CV og beskrivelse av hva han har oppnådd i livet. Når dette skrives er det tusen aktive celler som er i planleggingsfasen for sine terroraksjoner i Europa, skriver han blant annet i intervjuet med seg selv.

Når media ikke melder om de mange vellykkede terroraksjonene hans organisasjon (Knights Templar) har foretatt i Europa de siste årene så skyldes det, i følge Anders Behring Breiviks skriverier, at kulturmarxistmedia og det politisk korrekte samfunnet er livredde ham og hans organisasjon. Et annet sted i intervjuet skriver han at organisasjonen ikke er fanget opp ennå av de samme myndighetene.

Flere steder prøver han å sannsynliggjøre en omfattende ideologisk forskjell på seg og nynazistiske skinheads. Et sted skriver han om samarbeid og et sted skriver han at han aldri kunne blitt skinhead fordi han ikke liker kleskoden og musikkstilen deres. Det kan virke som om den ideologiske avgrunnen mellom ham og dem er «rock’n roll music».

Han lyver så han tror det selv. Han er nok ikke av intellektuell kapasitet til å forstå at andre mennesker, de som er smartere enn ham, altså de aller, aller fleste, gjennomskuer hans bløff og mangler.

Ved å intervjue og avsløre Anders Behring Breivik kan man kanskje også få de mange som er smartere enn ham til å forstå at selv om en jente i Norge med pakistansk bakgrunn blir sendt til Pakistan for å «muslimiseres» så er ikke løsningen å skyte ned AUF-ere på Utøya eller å planlegge å angripe journalistenes SKUP-konferanse!

Hvordan klarer han å bruke alt fra Voltaire og Thomas Jefferson til Marx, Freud, George Bernhard Shaw, Fjordman, paven og profeten Muhammed, bare for å nevne noen av de han fletter inn i sitt manifest, for å underbygge sin konklusjon om å angripe ubeskyttede og spesifikt angitte mål som ungdomsleiren til det største partiet?

Anders Behring Breivik. Foto fra hans Facebookside.

Dessverre frykter jeg at enkelte journalister heller kan henfalle til føleri og det å bli personrettet for å selge inn oppslag om den selverklærte martyren til mediekonsumenter som er disponerte for kikkermentalitet inn i det personlige.

Den slags intervjuer er mindre interessant da Anders Behring Breivik faktisk allerede har publisert et 65 siders personlig intervju med seg selv. Et personrettet intervju preget av føleri og uten kritiske innvendinger mot hans fremstilling og manglende logikk. Man kan kanskje kalle det et «mikrofonstativ-intervju» som ikke er så ulikt hva enkelte journalister kan klare å prestere?

Intervjuet er en del av hans manifest «2083».

Anders Behring Breivik har erkjent at det han kaller sitt manifest er skrevet av ham. Skal man dømme etter hva hans forsvarer Geir Lippestad har svart offentlig i media, har Anders Behring Breivik håpet og forventet at hans manifest skulle få oppmerksomhet.

Det er selvfølgelig vanskelig å si om han hadde forstått at manifestet ble avslørt som tildels omfattende sitering uten kildeangivelse av andres skrifter, med lite eller manglende logisk sammenheng mellom det han har sitert fra andre og den forståelse/konklusjoner han trekker ut fra dette.

Om jeg skal bedømme dette i dag og ut fra hva man har kunnet se i media og i hans manifest, vil jeg karakterisere Anders Behring Breivik som en klar strykkandidat på exphil.

Han virker ikke særlig kapabel for selv enkle logiske resonnementer med substans. Når man setter lyset på hans forvirrede konklusjoner fremstår han intellektuelt naken, og slett ikke med den intellektuelle tyngde han skryter på seg i skjulte fora, når ingen kan eller vil motsi ham.

Derimot er han flink til å «klippe og lime» i manifestet og å pynte på egen CV for å få seg til å fremstå som belest og en god analytiker.

Hva i hans handlinger som eventuelt skyldes svake empatiske evner, svært avvikende oppfatning av begreper som rett og galt og hva som skyldes konsekvenser av selvpåført rus fra ECA-blandinger han gikk på (efedrin, koffein og anabole steroider, som beskrevet i manifestet) vil muligens rettspsykiaternes rapporter si noe om.

Media kunne kanskje også senere teste ham med IQ og EQ-tester som gir et annet bilde enn hva hans oppblåste selvbilde i manifestet viser?

Manifestet består av 1518 sider når det er konvertert til PDF-format, (som kan være et enklere format å lese det i enn word-format). I tillegg til hans fremstilling av sin historieoppfatning og ideologi, hvorav svært mye er «klippet og limt» fra andre kilder, inneholder manifestet et intervju med ham selv, hans CV, fremgangsmåte for å lage bomben og en detaljert dagbok.

Komikerne Anders Bye (til venstre) og Jon Niklas Rønning. Faksimile NRK.no

Dagbokdelen er over tid blitt brettet ut i media.

Er det komikerne Jon Niklas Rønning og Anders Bye, som begge har gått på Nissen videregående skole, han hevder å ha festet med i Budapest høsten 2009?

Sitat fra manifestet: «My best friends, M, A, M and P went down and hooked up with another band of Norwegians we have known for some years. One of Ms best friends are Jon-Niclas, really cool guy. He’s a rather well known Norwegian comedian, together with his partner and friend Anders, and a few others. We had a lot of fun down there, the ten of us. Most of us know each other from Nissen High School in Oslo.»

Når hans bevegelser og omgangskrets skal undersøkes, alle steiner skal vendes, blir nok også satirikere med et skarpt blikk for parodier og detaljer utspurt.

Kritisk analyse, ikke fortielse og idolisering

Mye er sagt og skrevet om dette manifestet og terrorsiktedes tankeverden, men fremdeles kan og ikke minst bør mye sies og skrives om det. Da må man først analysere innholdet. Og da må man nødvendigvis få på bordet hva han sier, hvilke eventuelle fakta og feil han legger til grunn, hans tolkninger, hva han tror og mener.

For eksempel mener han at 70 prosent av alle menn og 30 prosent av alle kvinner er enige med ham. Om han får dette til å bli hundre prosent er ikke godt å vite, men logikk ser uansett ikke ut til å være blant hans sterke sider.

Om hundre år vil jeg bli feiret som en helt, skriver han. Jeg tror han tar kraftig feil, men dersom manifestet og konklusjonene hans skal skyves under teppet og få leve i miljøer som ikke selv makter å holde seg med motforestillinger kan nok flere komme til å beundre slike empatiske amøber og intellektuelle tapere.

Han nevner selv (i intervjuet) at medias fortielse har fått ham til å velge terrorløsningen.

Fortielse er ingen løsning for å hindre at mennesker med et snev av empati og tankekraft utvikler seg til voldelige selverklærte martyrer.

Jeg har tro på at demokratiet kan forsvares med demokratiets våpen. Da må man våge å debattere fritt og bringe kunnskap og folkeopplysning til torgs. Opplyste frie mennesker er demokratiets beste forsvarere.

I manifestet som er skrevet under pseudonymet Andrew Berwick, intervjuer forfatteren det han kaller en «Justiciar Knight» som ikke direkte navngis, men som omtales med initialene AB og beskrives fysisk slik Anders Behring Breivik er og med den erfaringsbakgrunn han har. Fra side 1349 til side 1413 i manifestet gjengir forfatteren et intervju med det som virker som seg selv. Anders Behring Breiviks CV er en del av svaret på spørsmål om å beskrive sin egen bakgrunn.

Dette er i et kapittel som heter «Intervju med en Justiciar Knight Commander av PCCTS, Knights
Templar». Kapittelet avsluttes med signaturen:

«AB

Justiciar Knight Commander, cell 8

Knights Templar Europe

Knights Templar Norway»


Bloggurat

Blogglisten

Twingly BlogRank

Anders Behring Breivik intervjuer seg selv.

Følgende utdrag er hentet fra et intervju gjengitt i hva Anders Behring Breivik kaller sitt manifest. (Intensjonen er ikke å være mikrofonstativ for terrorsiktede, men å prøve å bidra til å identifisere hva som kan ha påvirket ham og til at hans svake intellektuelle og dydsetiske nivå avdekkes.)

Han skriver i ‘jeg-form’. Q er question (spørsmål) og A er answer (svar). Av hensyn til layout har jeg valgt å legge ut spørsmålene i rød skrift.

«Interview with a Justiciar Knight Commander of the PCCTS, Knights Templar.

The following interview was conducted over three sessions. It might be considered irrelevant to many people. However, I decided to add it as I personally would enjoy reading a similar interview with another resistance fighter. The interview covers politics, society and the struggle: the Western European civil war, the PCCTS, Knights Templar and other armed pan-European and National Resistancemovements. It also covers personal reflectations and information.»

Q: Today, Western Europe has never been wealthier and an overwhelming majority of Europeans live in prosperity with more freedoms than they have ever had. Are you afraid that people in general will view you as the enemy, as a threat to their prosperity and freedoms, as a threat to stability in Europe?

A: I can totally understand that most people will condemn people like us simply because they do not ”yet” understand what is going on. And even if they do understand our reasons they might disagree with our ”means”, thinking that democracy can solve this problem as well just like democracy have solved many of the challenges we have faced in the past. Europeans in general do not live in or close to Muslim ghettos or enclaves and those that did have chosen to move far away. The problem is that many people live in denial and are suffering from historical amnesia. They fail to identify or comprehend what the Western European governments are doing to Europe. Those that do are hesitant to resist through violent means. While it is true that we currently enjoy wealth and many freedoms this will not be the case in 50 or 100 years. The Muslims in many parts of Europe will make up the majority within 2080. You must study the case of Lebanon and similar cases in order to comprehend what is going on. Lebanon was a Christian territory once with 80% Christians in 1911. Now, in today’s Lebanon, there are less than 25% Christians left. The Muslims won the war and Europe just let it happen. The remaining Christians live under harsh Dhimmitude and everyone in their right mind are attempting to flee the country. … The people of Western Europe have become slaves in their own countries, because they have forgotten to pronounce the word ”no”. It is quite common that large portions of the general population of any Western European country (uncritical of their government’s indoctrination campaigns) strongly identify witht heir monster polity, and take it personally when it’s criticised or attacked. People in general will oppose us as default because they do not know what we know; their governments have made sure of that. By marketing and distributing the compendium: 2083, and similar works, we hope to create more awareness, create reference points and thus contribute to consolidate and further our cause. Most people will today openly condemn us as terrorists. However, a hundred years from now we will be celebrated as pioneers, as heroes who gave their lives combating a tyrant oppressor.

Q: Let’s say that the democratic struggle to save Europe from ”Islamisation/Islamic demographic warfare” has been lost and that armed resistance against the current establishment is the right way to go. How do you expect to seize power from the current Western European cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes knowing that there are only a handful of you who are willing to die for the cause? Do you really expect to defeat all Western European governments seeing that they control absolutely everything; the media, national policeforces, intelligence agencies, national militaries and have the full backing of NATO?

A: A complete strategy is listed in the book “2083” but I can try to summarise it for you. We see the struggle or the current Western European civil war if you will as a three stage struggle.- Phase 1, 2009-2030- Phase 2, 2030-2070- Phase 3, 2070-2083 Obviously, we are not able to execute any coup d’état or effectively incite to revolution at this point (in phase 1). This was never the intention either. Our only objective in this phase is to create awareness about the truth and contribute to consolidation/recruitment. The establishment of military and political reference points now will be of huge benefit especially further down the road. The media have refused to forward our call the last decades. Instead they have systematically ridiculed and silenced us, labelling us as intolerant and racist bigots. Instead of respecting the will of the European people they have defiantly allowed evenmore Muslims to enter and defended the current development. Now they are even considering allowing Turkey into the EU. The only reason Turkey is not already in the EU is because of the work of the non-military resistance movements of Europe. The EUSSR elites may be evil but they are not stupid. They know that they will not get away with including Turkey at this point because Europeans will simply not accept it. If they allowed the Turkey to enter today and opened the borders to the Turkish Muslim hordes our armed resistance groups would experience thousands of new recruits instantly, ready to militarily secure our borders. The EUSSR elites know that, so they rely on a few more decades of indoctrination before they will continue with the process. By creating reference points with our operations we also force the media to acknowledge our presence and agenda (which is a great defeat to the establishment in itself). Our existence and actions are a living proof that they have made peaceful change impossible and that they have therefore made violent resistance unavoidable. … This war has just begun and we have no intention of acting prematurely. We know that time is on our side. Unfortunately, spectacular operations like these are the only way to be heard. Everything else we have tried has failed and yielded nothing. The Muslims showed us that deadly shock attacks are the only tool we have at the moment which will guarantee that our voice is heard. By forcing them to acknowledge our presence and explaining our agenda to everyone we are making it very hard for the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist mediaestablishment to ignore the call of the free people of Europe. The message is simple: “WE DO NOT WANT AND WILL NOT TOLERATE ISLAM IN EUROPE!” Any individual or organisation that actively supports or are participating (directly or indirectly as silent bystanders) in the Islamisation of Europe are flagged as valid targets, starting with the MA 100 political parties and media organisations themselves. We have tried protest through dialogue for 50 years now and that approach has been a disaster for us. The phase of dialogue has now ended. The PCCTS is a part of that manifestation. We will act as exemplary role models for our less organised brothers and sisters across Europe in the decades to come. The defeat of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist network of Europe is closely linked with the Islamisation of Europe. It’s quite ironic that their downfall will be their own greed (the wish to import more and more Muslim voters). Eventually, the political support for the EU’s Eurabiaproject/European multiculturalism/Islamisation will erode but not before it’s too late. … As long as the threat of Islam increases annually in Europe with Muslim populations increasing with more than 1 million per year, increased ghettofication in combination with Muslim atrocities against Europeans – harassment, robberies, rapes and murders), there will be an increasing amount of willing recruits for conservative and/or for the European anti-Jihad movements and even die-hard organisations like the Knights Templar. As long as the threat of Islam and dhimmitude increases in Europe we will see more and more indigenous liberation organisations like the Knights Templar. Even if we use brutal methods we will continue to retain all of our strategic advantages of mobility, invisibility, and legitimacy, in our own eyes and in the eyes of a good portion of the people.

Q: Some will claim that you are Christian fanatics, just as hateful and intolerantas Al Qaeda. How would you react to accusations like that?

A: The PCCTS, Knights Templar is a European indigenous rights movement and a Crusader movement (anti-Jihad movement), a part of the pan-European and national resistance movement. In a way it is a conservative revolutionary movement. By propagating and defending Christendom we simply mean that we want to halt the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist attacks and systematic deconstruction on our Christian cultures and the Church itself and to reverse the de-Christianisation of Europe. The biggest threat to Europe is the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist political doctrine of ”extreme egalitarian emotionalism”. This type of political stance involves destroying Christendom, the Church, our European cultures and identities and opening up our borders to Islamic colonisation. The Islamisation of Europe is merely a ”secondaryinfection”. Western Europe has grown weak and decadent and will be completely annihilated culturally unless we succeed to implement a second European renaissance and reverse the damage done. History has shown again and again that you cannot co-exist peacefully with Islam. The only thing you can do is to isolate it as our forefathers have done for the last 1400 years. Jihadi Islamists are imperialistic aggressors who believe in armed global Jihad with the purpose of aggressively (or through Dawah) conquer the world and will not give up until all individuals have embraced Islam. We share none of these goals. We on the other hand are a defensive military organisation who only seek to protect the peoples of Europe and our cultures from genocide. In order for us to effectively protect ourselves from Islam and Islamisation we must first defeat the Western European multiculturalist regimes who are facilitating the ongoing colonisation.

Q: If you were to coin a word for the ideology or movement you represent, what would it be?

A: Cultural conservatism or a nationalist/conservative direction known as the Viennaschool of thought. As for the political movement; I would describe it as a National Resistance Movement, an Indigenous Rights Movement or perhaps a Conservative Revolutionary Movement. Justiciar Knights are not an ideologically homogenous group. Many Justiciar Knight Commanders would probably reject some of my personal views as I would with theirs. Some are deeply Christian while some are Christian agnostics or even atheists. Some are individualists while others not so much so, some puritans. The primary factors that unites us is that we are all nationalists, anti-Marxist, anti-Islam(isation), we support indigenous rights and we are revolutionary, willing to martyr ourselves.

Q: Why aren’t you for freedom of religion where all religions are allowed to practice equally without hindering one another?

A: I think most people are. The trouble is, of course, that Islam by its very definition fallsoutside this category since it’s a supremacist political ideology FIRST which SECONDLY has certain religious components.

Q: Why do you say you’re not fascists when you support the suspension of the constitution during a coup?

A: That’s a good question. First of all, the current multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe are not at all democratic, They haven’t been democratic since the 1950s. There is no basis for democracy when all state institutions including schools, universities deliberately use advanced brainwashing techniques (as described earlier) to condition the people from resisting their own annihilation through the implementation of cultural Marxism/multiculturalist doctrines. Furthermore, there is no basis for democracy when 99% of all journalists support and propagate multiculturalism. There is no basis for democracy when all patriots and nationalists are ignored, ridiculed or persecuted. Factors such as these and many more have resulted in the Marxist tyranny we live under today. The political and cultural elites are deliberately selling their own people into Islamic slavery by allowing demographical warfare. As Thomas Jefferson once stated;“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”He also wrote:»That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Rightof the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. […] It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.»

Refreshing the tree is now long overdue as our countries are in a rapid state of disintegration. Our intention is to refresh the tree of liberty, and obviously not to cut it down. Refreshing the tree of liberty involves a coup supported by a significant portion of European patriots. Many of us will have to sacrifice our life for the cause in order to destroy the tyrants of our time. It is impossible to guarantee a democratically sanctioned coup as we have to keep in mind that Europeans have been brainwashed now for two generations. Many will oppose us for our stance and call us fascist. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge and understand that we are not. All coups involve the temporary suspension of the constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself knew that. However, the goal of the coup is as I said not to chop down the tree of liberty but to refresh it. A fascist opposes the democratical concept altogether and wants a permanent one party state, while we do NOT want this. In order to secure democracy we are forced to imbue and strengthen it from its current downward spiral towards the abyss. This can only be achieved through a temporary suspension of the constitution.The constitution will only be suspended for a limited time, until we have had the opportunity to implement at least some of our principles. These principles can’t even be openly discussed at this point in time due to the paralyzing effects of political correctness. After a certain period, the constitution and the rule of democracy will again become the primary standard. However, the dysfunctional mass-democracy will be replaced by an administered form of democracy similar to that of Russia. This is obviously to ensure that Marxists will never again get the chance to infiltrate state or media bodies.

Q: Some people will claim that you are just another Nazi fascist disguised with anti-Muslim rhetoric. Is that true?

A: That is ridiculous Marxist propaganda. If that was true, then why am I working on a weekly basis with fellow Indian, Jewish, Chilean intellectuals to preserve true, long term democracy, to ensure that the will of the people is respected? Why do we champion Israel’s cause when no one else is? Why do we propagate a military campaign, a military Crusade to assist our eastern Christians brothers – the Semitic Copts, Maronites, Assyrians? Why would we do this when they are not even considered “white”? The old definitions do not apply anymore. The current internationalist elites (cultural Marxists, suicidal humanists, globalists) are the Nazis of our age and deliberately collaborating with the Muslims. They are the Quislings who are trying to transfer political powers from our sovereign nations to a foreign political entity – the EUSSR/UN. Their intention is to deconstruct everything European so we will become neutralised minorities in our own countries. They expect us to willingly become easily manipulated pawns in their globalised Marxist/globalist utopia.This is not even a struggle between capitalists and socialists, it is a cultural war between nationalists and internationalists. I consider myself to be a supporter of the capitalistic system, although not globalist capitalism (where international corporations dictate much of the doctrines). A free market within our own economic block is essential but our own survival is the most important thing. To my left you will find a socialist, to my right you will find a social democrat. We are all willing to sacrifice our life for each other as nationalists/cultural conservatives because we believe in our common cause. To secure the survival of everything European by preventing the ongoing cultural and demographic genocide.

Q: Considering the fact that you may be willing to fight alongside so called neo-Nazis against cultural Marxists under extreme circumstances, doesn’t that make you a neo-Nazi or a neo-Nazi sympathiser?

A: First of all, I don’t consider 70-80% of so called neo-Nazis to be actual Nazis, but rather misguided individuals. I believe many of these youngsters have made an unfortunate mistake by being drawn to the Nazi symbols due to lack of alternatives and because it is the strongest and most well known anti-Marxist banner. But I don’t believe the majority of so called neo-Nazis really support the slaughtering and genocide of all Jews, a one party state and an imperialistic policy of conquest. I believe they are just bewildered nationalists in search for uniting factors. In their frustration they have chosen the most despicable banner available as a way of saying a big “fuck you” to the current establishment. But I am well aware that 20-30% of them really hates Jews and support most aspects of national-socialism. This shouldn’t be tolerated and we shouldn’t sympathise with them whatsoever. Driven by their Jew hate, these Nazis are willing to take side with Muslims in order to accomplish their goals. They are absolutely blinded by this hate. … We know that they will try to wipe us out as soon as the culturalMarxists, the suicidal humanists and the capitalist globalists have been defeated and after the Muslims have been deported from Europe. Let it be perfectly clear. The PCCTS, Knights Templar oppose National Socialism and we do not seek cooperation with them. We see National Socialism as a hate-ideology as it is genocidal and imperialistic in nature. However, we don’t have many potential allies. As rational creatures we will go to great lengths to prevent our own demise and secure our success.

Q: What political denominations/groups will eventually flag support for theEuropean nationalist/cultural conservative groups?

A: Nationalists or anti-internationalists adhere to many ideological denominations. In essence, all patriots (by the true definition if its meaning) are nationalists but not all traditionalists are necessarily nationalistic (f example some Christian fundamentalists and ethnocentric groups). The word “nationalist” has been tainted by history so I prefer the word “cultural conservative”. Cultural conservatism has obviously nothing to do with Toryism (traditional conservatism) but rather from the words true meaning: to conserve. A majority of Tories and Republicans are no longer “conservatives” as they support multiculturalism. You will find most political denominations on our side varying from the apolitical moderate patriotic and freedom loving European to more extreme factions: Patriotic liberalists-libertarians-capitalists-socialists-social democrats, Christian agnostics atheists-fundamentalists, any anti-internationalist conservative, liberal/progressive, conservative Hindus-Jews-Buddhists, anti-authoritarians, anti-racists, racists, antifascists/fascists, traditionalists and even some national socialists and nationalistBolsheviks. I find it quite ironic that an increasing number of anti-internationalist Marxists join our side. We also see some Muslims convert to Christianity and begin to support our cause.The ongoing cultural war will polarise societies and countries further and there will be two main factions. The nationalists/conservatives (cultural conservatives) vs. the internationalists (Marxist internationalists, suicidal humanists and capitalist globalists). The apolitical career cynisists will follow anyone in charge. Our biggest strength (despite of seemingly overwhelming odds at the moment) is that we have approximately 13 million nationalists spread across Europe willing to die for the cause while only a fraction is willing to die for “internationalism”. Of course, the internationalists may eventually attempt to arm the Muslims in Western Europe but if it comes to that they have already lost. They will lose the support of all remaining non-Muslims and will be left with only a hardcore Marxist elite with a significantly reduces loyalist/Muslim police/military force. At this point in time, a majority of the former police force/military will fight by our side. At the moment, approximately 60% of Europeans (excluding Muslims) support our fundamental political doctrines but obviously not necessarily the means. However, the most important distinction here is the male/female ratio of our sympathisers. Approximately 70% of European males support our cause while only 30% of European women. As a consequence, when this is all over we must significantly reduce these women’s influence on political issues relating to national security, social structures, penalpolicies, border control, immigration, assimilation, certain cultural issues – nationalcohesion and procreation (birth) policies. This is perhaps the most important lesson we must learn, the betrayal by so many of our own women. It is not really a betrayal as a majority of our women only thinks and acts in accordance with how nature created them– in a suicidal compassionate manner. But it is essential that we prevent our women from propagating their suicidal compassion in “safe and more controlled environments” in the future. Sure, this is sexist policies but nature itself is sexist and you cannot defy primary natural laws. This rule will not be without exceptions though and we should keep in mind that 30% of European women do support us.

Q: If your National government had been very restrictive in regards to conserving identity, culture and halted Islamic immigration completely would you still have engaged in operations against them?

A: If my country was on the forefront for ”delaying” Islamisation it would obviously be counter-productive to launch attacks against that particular regime first. Norway is perhaps the most suicidal of all Western European countries today. We are on the forefront in the propagation of ”self-annihilation” policies such as dialogue and appeasement toward Islam. The country has also created a tradition to use the Nobel Peace Prize as a tool for Islamic appeasement efforts. I have no moral reservations whatsoever against participating or leading military operations against Norwegian Category A and B traitors as it is the most basic of human rights to defend your people against genocide. Denmark, being stricter than many countries, will still be unable to prevent the Islamic demographic warfare through democratic means but at least they are buying some extratime by implementing relatively strict rules.

Q: “Racist, Nazi, Fascist, Homophobe, Islamophobe” How do you react to the“cultural Marxist/multiculturalist” labelling techniques, or psychological warfare if you will?

A: These are typical EUSSR cultural Marxist/multiculturalist labelling techniques. According to them, anyone who attempts to criticise multiculturalism are racists, intolerant bigots, angry, underprivileged males etc. The thinking seems to be that there are only two versions of Europeans. If you do not support multiculturalism 100% you are a Nazi. You’re also a fascist pig, a racist, a homophobe – in other words a sub-human. This attitude betrays an all-pervasive hatred that demonises absolutely anything Europeans do to protect their dignity, culture and heritage. Multiculturalism is an anti-European hate ideology. As such, they are the Nazis of our time, not us. I consider myself to be an anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. That’s the main reason why I oppose Cultural Communism/European multiculturalism. THEY are the Nazis, they are the fascists and they are the racists! I have witnessed much racism in my time but 90% of it has been against Europeans. I have actually never been called a racist, fascist or Nazi before personally but I know it is the preferable tactic of the culturalMarxist/multiculturalist establishment to silence the masses. We are not National Socialists, in fact, we oppose National Socialists. About the perceived anti-Gay mentality The multiculturalists WANT us to fit in their pre-defined stereotype. They want us to be racists, fascist, gay hating individuals because it would make their job so much easier in their effort to label us as the scum of the earth. The truth of the matter is that I personally know several gay individuals and have known several gay people during the years and I don’t have any reservations against them. Why would I care what they do behind closed doors? However, I personally do object to the “gay media hysteria” which has been going on in Western Europe the last two decades. In many cases “alleged victim groups” are subjected to positive discrimination within politics, media and certain sectors. In those specific contexts it has become standard policy to discriminate so called “heterosexualmen”. Western European media, especially in the protestant countries are obsessed with cheering the gay community and other minorities they see as “preferred groups” in their so called “victim hierarchy”. The glorification of “preferred groups” in the EUSSR “victimhierarchy” have gone too far.

Q: Why do you think it has come to this?

A: To quote Fjordman;“Multiculturalists in Western Europe has gradually become fanatical egalitarian, the fight against “discrimination” of any kind, the idea that all groups of people should have an equalshare of everything and that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that this takes place. Multiculturalists have cultivated a culture of victimhood in the West, where you gain political power and media attention through your status in the victim hierarchy. In many ways, this is what Political Correctness is all about. “

Needless to say I couldn’t agree more. The extreme egalitarianism you see in NW Europe today has developed into a crusade against everything and everyone who does not conform to the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist world view. According to the Nazis of ourtime; the multiculturalists: if you do not support multiculturalism you are considered human garbage and the persecution of human garbage is allowed and even encouraged.

Q: Why sacrifice your own life for something that might not end up as you project? And why would you be willing to sacrifice your life for others? Why don’t you just chose the easy way, live the easy life, conform and enjoy all benefits of modern society offered under the current regimes?

A: This is exactly what my family and friends have implored me to do for years now. They have pressured me and I must admit I have been somewhat ridden by guilt in this regard. At the same time I know what has to be done. I could never ignore the current situation without doing anything. In this regard I felt I had two choices. Create a large family (3-5 children) or completely focus on my tasks as a part of the European resistance movement. I don’t understand why so many people can simply ignore the current situation without doing anything. How can they look their kids in the eyes in the future knowing that they have done nothing? How can they even act so suicidal and continue to vote for political parties who support multiculturalism? Their children are the ones who will have to fight in the coming civil war against the Islamist/cultural Marxistalliance. They will ask their parents; “why didn’t you do anything, how could you allow this to happen?” They are the ones who have to fight and perhaps die in Phase 3 because my generation (and my parents generation) didn’t have the guts to stop the current development. It’s not right. I feel a strong obligation to contribute in Phase 1 even if I succumb in the process. It is essential that as many individuals as possible contribute even if it just results in creating a small crack in the discriminating and genocidal multiculturalist system. Every effort counts, even the smallest contribution! “It is better to live one day as a lion, then one hundred years as a sheep.” Most of the people I know are either cowards or apathetic hypocrites. They know exactly what is going on but many of them don’t care at all, because they know that they will be dead before phase 3. I don’t want to judge them too harshly considering the fact that I used to be an apathetic hypocrite myself. After all, we are all victims in a way as we have been indoctrinated for decades by the multiculturalist system. However, everyone living near a capital or a major European city is witnessing the current developments. They don’t care because it doesn’t concern them yet. Standing up for their beliefs will involve suffering. They are deliberately avoiding that for as long as possible. It has always been very tempting to just go with the flow, sticking your head in the sand and deal with problems as they arise. Having passed the age of 30, I’m now in a situation where I have to decide whether I want to get married and start a family. I can choose to live a normal life if I want to, just like my friends are doing. Get a cute girlfriend, get married, have kids, continue my career and earn 50 000-60 000+ Euro per year. The problem as I see it is that I truly fear for the future of Europe. How can I procreate knowing that we are heading for cultural suicide? By being a silent bystander to this I will be as guilty as our corrupt elites. How could I silently watch while Islamic demographic warfare is being waged against our societies, diminishing our numbers and the influence over our very own lives? I feel compelled to act, even though I know that very few will dare to become one of the pioneers, one of the first martyrs in Phase 1. There are only two logical steps for people my age; have as many children as possible and prepare for Phase 2 or 3 or fight now in Phase 1. I chose the latter. As for the general public; people don’t care as long as their loved ones are safe. They have careers with solid salaries; they enjoy all the current freedoms. Why on earth would they give up on all that and join a resistance movement? Joining an anti-Jihad movement means becoming a political dissident. The government and media will attempt to label you as a racist or an intolerant bigot and use any means necessary to undermine your efforts, you risk losing your job, you risk losing everything. The core question is, why chose the hard way, when you have the option of choosing the easy way? Why chose to suffer when you do not have to? There are good men and there are individuals who don’t care at all. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. I chose selflessness, to resist a tyrant oppressor by all means necessary. I couldn’t live my life as a cowardly hypocrite, sticking my head in the sand.

Q: What’s your view on moderate anti-immigration parties?

A: Their motives are noble although counter-productive. Anti-immigration parties usually start out as idealistic but end up as a diluted and corrupt verion of their former selves. It would be better if they admitted the truth, that the democratic struggle to save Europe has been lost and the only way to proceed is by resisting the establishment by other means. In many ways, they are contributing to pacify the people by giving them false hope. Even if they are included as a partner in a future government their policies will end up being too diluted to make any difference. You cannot become the government unless you bow to the views of the ”Centre-Left” media elite, especially the broadcast media elite.They will never get more than 35% of the votes in any election, even in phase 2. As such, they may be able to delay a Muslim majority by a couple of decades with strict integration and immigration policies but they will still be unable to prevent the eventual confrontation.

Q: Can significant indirect damage against civilians be justified?

A: Yes and no. It can be justified in the sense that it is the only pragmatical way to move forward. When someone blows up a government building it is obviously not with the intention to kill the cleaning lady or the janitor. The target has been selected after careful consideration because it will yield the wanted results.There are extreme and moderate forces. We are all cultural conservatives even though we use different means. We have taken it upon ourselves to use brute, cynical force so other people don’t have to. The other political fronts should welcome it as a necessary evil in order to rid ourselves of a much greater evil. Innocent people will die, in the thousands. But it is still better than the alternative; millions of dead Europeans, which is the worst case phase 3 scenario.

Q: What about atheists and Odinists, can they join the PCCTS, Knights Templar?

A: If you want to fight for the cross and die under the “cross of the martyrs” it’s required that you are a practising Christian, a Christian agnostic or a Christian atheist (culturalChristian). The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit. Even Odinists can fight with us or by our side as brothers in this fight as long as they accept the founding principles of PCCTS, Knights Templar and agree to fight under the cross of the martyrs. The essence of our struggle is to defeat the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe before the we are completely demographically overwhelmed by Muslims. I have studied Norse Mythology and have a lot of respect for the Odinist traditions. I consider myself to be a Christian, but Odinism is still and will always be an important part of my culture and identity.

Q: Is it likely that Odinists will support the cause of the PCCTS, KnightsTemplar, considering the fact that many of them hate Christendom?

A: First of all, as a Norwegian, I am extremely proud of my Odinistic/Norse heritage as it is an essential aspect of my culture and my identity. However, things aren’t black and white. Supporting the Christian cultural heritage does not automatically mean you hate Odinism or vice versa. There are pragmatical considerations Odinists have to evaluate as well. Do they really believe the symbolism of Mjöllnir (Thors hammer) has the potential to unite the Nordic peoples against the forces we are facing? Do they really believe Odinistic symbolism would be more suitable compared to the uniting force of Christendom’s symbolism and that of the cross? Anyone with half a brain will know that only the symbolism of the cross (which is a part of all the Nordic flags btw with the exception of Germany) has the potential to unite us for this cause. Choosing to fight under the banner of the cross, does not constitute that you have to reject your Odinistic heritage in any way or form. As for their claim that a Christian principle of suicidal humanism is a part of the root of our current problems, I couldn’t agree more. However, instead of abandoning Christendom altogether I know European Christendom can be reformed. The Church wasn’t always as weak and suicidal as it is today. The Odinists needs to understand that the Church they hate is the cultural Marxist Church and not the real Church. The Church I love doesn’t exist anymore because it has been deconstructed. However, I know that it can be reformed and that it again will embrace and propagate principles of strength, honour and self defense. Instead of abandoning the Church we will save it and re-create it as a nationalistic Church which will tolerate and allow (to a very large degree) native cultures/heritage/thought systems such as Odinism. As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons. After all, Christianity is the ONLY cultural platform that can unite all Europeans, which will be needed in the coming period during the third expulsion of the Muslims. Odinism is significant for the Nordic countries but it does not have the potency to unite us against such a devastating force as Islam, cultural Marxism/multiculturalism and capitalist globalism. Only Europeans, in solidarity with each other, can solve our current problems. As for secularism, are there any strong uniting symbols at all? I think not. In order to protect your culture you need, at the very minimum, strong, uniting symbols representing your culture. In this context, the cross is the unrivalled as it is the most potent European symbol. I have had this discussion with many Odinists, and even they understand this. Odinists need not fear us as they should consider us brothers in our common fight. I strongly encourage them to support us. Because we might not succeed in our struggle to defeat the EUSSR cultural Marxist/multiculturalist hegemony without their support.

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;- That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reasonis the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christianfundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European societybased on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christianatheist(an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christiancultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order.

Q: Why haven’t we heard anything about PCCTS, Knights Templar before,considering the fact that the organization was formed in 2002?

A: That’s a good question. I am surprised why EU countries haven’t labeled our organization yet. Perhaps it is politically motivated psychological warfare, who knows? First of all, I only met 4 out of the 9 original founding members due to security precautions and I only know the identity of 5 of them (4 of them know my identity). There might be tens, even hundreds of Justiciar Knights now spread all across WesternEurope as far as I know. I haven’t heard anything from the media about PCCTS, KnightsTemplar operations before either which indicates the following; either some of the original cells have not activated yet, which is not very likely considering the fact that the military order was formed more than 8 years ago. Or a couple of the cells may have perished or have been arrested in the planning phase before they even activated. Or perhaps they did activate and went through with their operation but did not manage to penetrate media censorship. A successful operation might have been labeled as an“accident” or otherwise censored by the media/regime. Perhaps a couple of them simply didn’t want to proceed alone or in a party with 1-2 other individuals but needed or wanted the support from a larger traditional hierarchy and joined another organisation instead. A few might have gotten cold feet and went about their usual business and abandoned our struggle and campaign altogether. It is really hard to tell. I do know however that there have been more than a hundred successful operations from armed nationalist movements in Europe the last decade. But the main problem is that a great majority of these operations are not “spectacular” enough to break media censorship. There are too many threats made and not enough action to make a substantial difference at this point. But the resistance movements in Europe are continuously growing and evolving. It is understandable that many organisations will require more time in order to reach a point where they are actually making an ideological difference. I feel it is the responsibility of the PCCTS, Knights Templar to contribute to speed up this process by acting as good role models for all European patriots. It is just a matter of time before one cell succeeds with a spectacular operation. I estimate that there are thousands of cells around Western Europe in the planning phase of an operation while we speak. I don’t worry about it as it is still relatively early in phase 1 and we have up to 70 years to win this war, before we are demographically overwhelmed and the systems collapse either way. Another scenario might be that due to the nature of our extremely decentralised platform, the original constitution of the concept might have (for a couple of the cofounders) morphed into different manifestations/interpretations of resistance movements with slightly different political manifests. I wonder sometimes if one of the EDL founders was one of the co-founders of PCCTS, I guess I’ll never know for sure. EDL is a non-violent protest organisation though but I noticed they have copied a lot from the PCCTS. Then again, it is most likely just a coincidence. I do think a lot about what happened to some of the co-founders. It’s pointless to speculate I guess but I check the news regularly to see if anything has slipped through the media blackout relating to actions launched by individual resistancefighters or the European Resistance Organisations. I may or may not have had contact with at least 2 of these co-founders since the founding. Obviously, I can’t reveal any sensitive information so the above characteristic might be what I want you to believe and not the actual truth:-).

Q: How would you argue against criticism from other so called Europeanchivalric organisations like the Freemasons, the OSMTH and similar?

A: They claim to be Knights of Christ yet they are not willing to sacrifice their life for the preservation of European Christendom. They do not even acknowledge that European Christendom is in the process of being deconstructed. They claim to be Knights but they are not even warriors. How can they claim to be today’s manifestation of a pious chivalricorder when the core doctrine of the Knights Templar was to submit to voluntary poverty? All I see is a group of decadent individuals who are not willing to make any substantial sacrifices for anyone or anything. Furthermore, Knighthood is directly linked to martyrdom. Taking martyrdom out of knighthood would be like taking elections out of a democracy. A person unwilling to martyr himself for a greater cause can never call himself a Knight and a Christian individual unwilling to martyr himself for the preservation of European Christendom can never call himself a Knight of Christ. We, the PCCTS, Knights Templar, can, and we are currently the most genuine successors to their legacy. It is, however, not our goal to completely mimic the order. Demanding that our members undergo a theological education would be pointless as today’s curriculum has been corrupted by Christian pacifists and suicidal humanists. Furthermore, creating a religious order would be counter-productive as a majority of Europe’s armed resistancefighters are agnostics, atheists or relatively secular Christians. The organisation is therefore considered a moderate Christian identity organisation and not a religious order. Anyway, the Freemasons or the OSMTH cannot be compared to the PCCTS, KnightsTemplar. Yet, I do respect their role in society. They are fine representatives and curators (keepers of cultural heritage) and therefore fulfil an essential role. In fact, we have much to learn from them and are likely to go to them (their libraries) for research purposes. We salute them for their everyday efforts but will not accept any criticism from them or similar “so called” chivalric organisations.

Q: What do you expect the future Cultural Conservatives intend to do with the”cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites” if they manage to seize power?

A: This really depends on the circumstances, how far it will go before the sitting regime rejects multiculturalism and real changes are made, or how many native Europeans will be killed in the process. They have until 2020 to capitulate to cultural conservative forces. However, I am not naive enough to expect a surrender. It is a formality in our 100 year struggle. If the expected scenario transpires (they refuse to surrender and reject allour demands) I would assume that all category A and B traitors will be executed and their property expropriated. Category C traitors (up to 10 000 per million) will receive a fitting punishment depending on their crime. It may vary from imprisonment to expropriation of property or losing the right to work in certain positions or professions. Obviously, many of us reading this will not be alive in phase 3 (2070-2090). Many unforeseeable factors might occur which is impossible to predict so our guidelines are exactly that, guidelines.

Q: Why do we lack credible unbiased analysis of the current right wing?

A: First of all, it is not possible to discuss the ”far right wing” objectively if you chose to follow modern politically correct narratives. This is the main reason why there aren’t any meaningful debates about this important topic. The only ”politically correct” approach to current far right wing movements is to label them all as ”evil fascists, racists, Nazis, bigots” and move on. Anyone who tries to scratch the surface and analyse these ideologies further become suspects themselves and might even be labelled as bigots. Racism is considered the ”arch sin” in our societies so everyone avoids any analysis around this topic due to the fear that stigma is attached. As we all know; if you are labelled as a racist even once you are as good as dead, from a political viewpoint at least. This is unfortunately the reason why there are no constructive debates on this important topic. In order to fully analyse the right wing you need to completely detach yourself from the politically correct narrative and approach the topic objectively and pragmatically. I hesitated to include this analysis, mainly because I instinctively dislike writing about anything related to race, ethnicity and Jew hate. I was brought up that way and I still suffer many effects of two decades of multiculturalist indoctrination. Also, I am against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist alliance and an Islamic presence in Europe, so writing about skin colour would only be counter-productive. However, we can’t really ignore NS if we are to make a completely honest evaluation. Western nations can never mount a defence against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist alliance and Islamic demographic warfare unless we manage to convert the NS over to a more sensible and appealing ideology. The objective is that all their supporters join our cause. This is why it’s important to argue against the NS ideology instead of ignoring them.

Q: What do you consider the primary obstacle to Western European right wing consolidation?

A: In order to answer that fully you first have to define right wing. What is right wing? Nationalism, capitalism, individualism, Christian Puritanism, Christendom, culturalconservatism, racial conservatism or perhaps traditionalism? Some terms will always beover-lapping. It’s important to understand that the definition of right wing is constantly changing based on perceived ”threats”. These changes varies greatly though and does not really apply for more ”constant” beliefs such as Christian Puritanism, and NationalSocialism. Personally, I don’t fully consider NS as a right wing alternative due to its socialist nature. Nevertheless, let’s review different ”perceived” far right wing directions and their major traits: 1. Christian far right wing: anti abortion etc (strict puritan beliefs). 2. New right: pro-free-market within a greater European block at least, pro Jewish, anti-Islamisation, anti-multiculturalist, anti-racist. 3. NS right wing: anti-Jewish, anti-capitalistic, racial conservatives. a. All Western governments are ZOG – Zionist Occupied Governments. b. The Jews are the cause for the implementation of multiculturalism with all its modern manifestations. Capitalism is a Jewish invention with the purpose of enslaving all non-Jews. c. The Jews wish to destroy the white race by flooding Europe and the US with “blacksand Asians”. This has been done by creating and implementing “multiculturalism”. 4. Laissez-faire Capitalism is a globalist concept (no government intervention). Laissezfaire is often used to refer to various economic philosophies and political philosophies (liberalism) which seek to minimise or eliminate government intervention in most or allaspects of society. 5. Fascism – one party state, often cultural and racial conservatives. No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition. The term fascist is used as a pejorative word, a phrase that implies disapproval or contempt and is meant to be insulting. The Euro-US divide However tempting to discuss US nationalism/conservatism, I’m not going to. The reason is that the fundamental factors vary too much. The European Americans aren’t the indigenous peoples of the US, the Native Americans are. In addition; there are more than 60 million Muslims in Western (25-30) + Eastern Europe (35) while only 9 million in the US. Also, in my experience, those who disapprove of Israel’s right to exist are either anti-Semites or suffer from very poor judgment. Sensible people should support Zionism (Israeli nationalism) which is Israel’s right to self-defence against Jihad. The East-West European divide If we include conservatives/nationalists from central or Eastern Europe, the term “antiimmigration”does not capture the core concerns of these groups. Because immigration into these countries is very limited, these groups have not mobilised against immigrants. Rather, they have promoted strong right wing nationalism based on anti-EU sentiments, as well as anti-Semitism and opposition towards other ethnic groups, in particular the Roma (gypsies). The exceptions are Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bulgaria and the Muslimcontrolled areas known as Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo. While these countries haven’t experienced “modern western style” immigration they are very familiar with Islamic demographic warfare, having witnessed the demographic expansion of Albanians and Bosniaks for centuries. Ironically, some of the former Communist countries in Europe enjoy many freedoms which their Western cousins are lacking. However, this may soon change as they are forced to accept multiculturalist indoctrination policies by the EU (they may be forced to embrace and implement the Eurabia project) leading to mass Muslim immigration in Eastern European countries as well. I really doubt this will happen though, as many of our Eastern cousins have too many un-falsified sources of Ottoman tyranny. They will simply reject these particular EU policies. There are certain policies which are harder to reject than others though. As we all know, the Muslim dominated UN are pushing hard for all European countries to accept Muslim asylum seekers. Now that we have somewhat defined the term “right wing” we can move on. It’s essential that we, Western Europeans, focus first and foremost on OUR territories. What works in the US or Eastern Europe will not work here. There are simply too many different underlying political factors for that. We need one dominant Western European mainstream ideology specifically “created” for Western European core issues and needs per 2009-2100. So don’t waste your time trying to “mimic” US nationalists or chase dead ideologies for that matter!

Q: Are you a holocaust denier?

A: Assuming of course that you are referring to the Jewish holocaust under NaziGermany; no, I have reviewed the evidence, both the evidence presented by the Alliedpowers and the anti-holocaust evidence presented by the Axis Powers and neo-Nazimovements. I don’t find the anti-holocaust evidence credible so I don’t see a reason why anyone should deny the Jewish holocaust. As far as I have understood; Nazi Germany didn’t originally want to annihilate the Jews. They were considering deportation but they didn’t really have any location to deport them to, and they weren’t offered any location by the allied forces. They didn’t start massacring the Jews until after they realised that they were losing the war and the window of opportunity was closing fast (after the failed Russian invasion in 1941). I guess, they used the following logic; they felt they had to cut out what they viewed as a cancer before they lost the war somewhat like many Serbs did during the Balkan war. They wanted to deport but as their adversaries made that impossible they chose the only solution (according to their logic). No one should try to justify genocide, it is a bad thing that cannot or should not be excused. There are always other options. My problem with holocaust denial however is the European culturalMarxist/multiculturalist elite’s refusal to acknowledge the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian genocides by the hand of the Islamic Ummah. Islam has systematically slaughtered more than 300 million people since its creation and this trend is continuing every year (see the continuation of the Assyrian, Coptic, Maronite, Hindu genocides in the Middle East). The politically correct elites of the EUSSR/USASSR are the true holocaust deniers as they refuse to acknowledge current and historical Islamic atrocities.Furthermore, while I oppose deniers of the Jewish holocaust I realise that the “holocaustreligion” is an extremely destructive force in Europe. Today, European youths are systematically brainwashed and made into pacifist eunuchs (school classes being bussed to former concentration camps and taught to reject their culture, pride etc.). Our elites,backed by the EUSSR/USASSR cultural hegemony, are stripping away any sense of pride and honor from European youths in a deliberate scheme to feminise/pacify them in order to prevent future Nazi movements from emerging. The problem here is that we are left with little to none cultural defenses against any force which would want to conquer us.This is why the Islamic Ummah have been taken advantage of our lack of cultural defenses and are currently colonising us, facilitated by our traitorous culturalMarxist/multiculturalist elites. The “holocaust religion” has grown into a destructive anti-European monster, which prevents nationalistic doctrines from emerging. And without nationalistic doctrines, Europe will wither and die, which we are seeing today. It’s quite ironic that Even Israel would appear to have become a victim of it. Needless to say, while I am a strong supporter of Israel and of all patriotic Jews I acknowledge that the anti-European holocaust religion must be deconstructed, and instead replaced with an anti-Islamicversion. After all we are talking about a disproportion of 6 million killed Jews vs. 300 million massacred Jews/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/Zoroastrians/Animists. As of now, the “holocaust religion” is one of the major factors that are making Europe vulnerable and susceptible for Islamic conquest through demographical warfare. European cultural conservatives are today faced with the similar scenario that our Serb brothers were. Yes, we are going to deport every single Muslim from Europe, but we must do everything in our power to avoid unnecessary bloodshed as it would hurt our cause and serve as a catalyst to consolidate our adversaries and allow them to justify the use of unrestricted military power against us. So what if our enemies bomb our roads, rail ways and boats, making it impossible to deport? If we are prevented from deporting we must focus on the real issues and not do anything short sighted. If we do not have a military or political advantage we should focus on preserving and strengthening our fragile regime instead of risking it all by acting prematurely. In that scenario, we should wait a few years until more countries join our alliance until the day where we have the required roads, trucks, railroads and boats (and a sufficient military force to protect ourselves) in order to start deportations.

Q: Why do you consider National Socialism to be a “dead” ideology?

A: First of all, the reason I’ve made extensive research around the following fields is because I think it’s time that all Western European NS’s realises the harm they arecausing in regards to right wing consolidation. National Socialism was designed for Germany after WW1 and it addressed the concerns and needs of the time (according tothem). The ideology was defeated in WW2 but many right wing individuals still refuse to let it go. By doing so they are effectively undermining CURRENT concerns and needs ofour time. There are currently so many defensive mechanisms in place in WesternEuropean societies against National Socialism that any attempt to resurrect the ideology will be counter-productive. The relatively new Anti-Eurabian, Christian cultural conservative stance however is an ideology specifically designed to resist these defensive mechanisms or “baits” if you will. The goal of my argumentation is to contribute to remove the last doubts with the remaining NS’s. Everyone who wants to contribute to save Europe from cultural genocideshould reject National Socialism and instead chose the Anti-Eurabian, Christian culturalconservative stance. It is a hybrid of various right wing concepts which has the potential to gain the support of aprox 35% of Europeans. At the end of the day the goal is all that matters. If you are unable to conform and adapt to current and modern concepts which has the potential to bring us to power you will only undermine your own efforts. It should be noted though that the majority of the individuals who are labelled as NS today by the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist establishment are not at all NS and very often opposed to any NS policies. There are, however, NS out there, some are ideologically confident senior members and many young and “confused” so called neo-Nazi’s who mimic the older generation NS. This is a huge challenge that must be addressed. … In 1955 there were less than 50 000 Muslims in Western Europe. Today there are more than 25 million. What have the NS movement achieved in this period? Not as much as they could have, they have spent much of their time defending an already “exposed” ideology that has no popular support whatsoever. An ideology which started as a “deceitful” ideology but who has been completely exposed for what it is. The most popular NS party has received a maximum of 5% support in any election the last 50 years. I can’t really find the words to describe how counter-productive the NS ideology is in today’s society. It serves as the primary catalyst and reason why multiculturalism has been so successful. I’m going to try to cover many aspects of NS in order to describe why I think the current NS’s should reject this ideology and support the new Western European right wingmovement (pro-Jewish, anti-Islamic stance). Economy There are many flaws with the European free market system but I still think that our current version is better than all other economic systems. Of course, there’s a great difference between the US and EU system (even a great variety between the different European models), I tend to favour a middle way, a compromise between the US version and the average EU system. The British system has proven to be sustainable compared to more socialist oriented variants. Jews There are only 1 million Jews in Western Europe (800 000 of them in France and the UK) while there are 5-6 million in the US. So naturally, the American NS movement is much more obsessed with the Jews than Europeans are. The Jews influence in EU policymaking is marginal but several right wing groups continue with this obsession regardless. As a comparison there are 25 million Muslims in Western Europe, up from 50 000 in 1955. This factor alone proves that the NS ideology is irrelevant and completely outdated in today’s society. However, the National Socialist still claim that these 200 000 Jews (in Western Europe with the exception of France and the UK) are in full control of all governments and are swamping Europe with people of colour (Muslims included) in order to destroy these three white races (Nordics, Alpines and Mediterranean’s). This conclusion is incorrect. Jews in Western Europe There were slightly more than 1 million Jews living in Western Europe at the start of 2002. Of these, nearly 80 percent could be found in France and the United Kingdom, home to Europe’s largest and strongest Jewish populations. The number of Jews in France fell from 535 000 in 1980 to some 500 000 in 2002, a loss of over 6 percent. The Jewish community is in rapid decline due to assimilation, intermarriage and low birth rates. British Jewry fared even worse. There were 430 000 Jews living in Great Britain in 1950, but just 283 000 in 1996. «French Jewry will experience a slow but steady decline from 520 000 in 2000, to 480000 in 2020, to 380 000 in 2050, and 300 000 in 2080.» «The Jewish population in the United Kingdom will decline to 240 000 in 2020, 180 000 in 2050, and 140 000 in 2080.»In smaller Jewish communities in Europe, the retrenchment rates have been even more pronounced; f example in Ireland, where the 1991 census found there to be 1 581 Jews. Today, the number is said to be approximately 1 000, marking a decline of over 50 percent in just a decade. In Norway there are only approximately 950 Jews and the number is declining. Even in countries where the numbers have remained fairly stable, such as Spain or Italy, or which have experienced growth, such as Germany, it is primarily due to an influx of immigrants from the former Soviet states, and not because of any inherent vitality within the local community itself. So the general tendency in Western Europe is that the Jewish community is rapidly declining due to assimilation, intermarriage and migration to Israel and the UnitedStates. So basically, the NS ideology suggests that 950 Jews are controlling the Norwegian government, a government which is known to be the most anti-Zionist of all European countries…!? Let’s not forget, 1 000 Jews are controlling Ireland etc. These NS claims are absolutely ridiculous and counter-productive. Being a Norwegian myself, I know that these claims are completely false. They have no credibility whatsoever. The reason why multiculturalism was embraced in Norway and a majority of Western European countries was because of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist alliance, an alliance dominated by indigenous atheist nationals and not Jews. Same can be said regarding claims against the Freemasons. According to the NS movement the Freemasons are a Zionist organisation. Being a Free Mason myself I know that this is not only a false claim but actually quite ridiculous. The Freemasons is not in any way political (I wish the organisation was, believe me) and it is true that they have a positive view on Jews. However, this is from a Christian religious context, where solidarity to Jews and Israel is important. The Freemasons is a Christian only organisation and no Muslim or Jew could become a member even if they wanted to. There are no political bodies within the organisation nationally or internationally. Jews in the world Most estimates I have seen suggest that there are about 13-14 million Jews in the world. The vast majority of these Jews live in either the United States or Israel, each with approximately 5-6 million Jews. There are less than 2 million Jews in Europe combined (Western Europe totals 1 million), 400 000 in Latin America and 350 000 in Canada. In Africa, there are less than 100 000 Jews, about 90% of whom live in the country of South Africa. There are about 100,000 Jews in Australia and New Zealand combined. There are about 50 000 Jews in Asia (not including Israel). Jewish upbringing and the capitalistic system Steven L. Pease writes:“Jews make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chesschampions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicinelaureates. Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy Leaguestudent bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honourees, 37 percent of the AcademyAward-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.”Jews are the single most successful “group of individuals” in the world based on their numbers (13-14 million only), both economically and within various other fields (Politics, Science, Literature etc.). Why? For those familiar with Jewish history knows that they have been persecuted all over the world the last millennium. They have been targeted in both Muslim and Christian societies up until the 20th century. These events, in combination with sionist thought, have contributed to shape the Jewish mentality, principles and upbringing. Jews are naturally far more paranoid than most people and teach their offspring about valour, the value of long term goals, the value of saving/investing instead of spending and the value of the nuclear family and family loyalty. As such, they indoctrinate their children in a different way than Christian families do. Jews often teach their children to save while Christian families teach their offspring to spend. In this regard Jewish families tend to focus on long term goals while the average Christian family is much more short sighted (Be happy now, you might die tomorrow – credit cards etc.). Obviously this generalisation has a lot of exceptions and it is gradually being diluted due to gradual assimilation. From a historical context however, Jewish upbringing compared to Christian has been influenced by the “minority/majority syndrome”. So the main difference why Jews are often more successful than Christians (and especially Muslims) are the varieties in the indoctrination during their upbringing. Some Jews will claim that they have a higher IQ than Europeans due to biology. However, if this was true then the world IQranking would not indicate that the average IQ for European countries is in fact higher than that of Israel. The focus on self interest and camaraderie has historically been a factor which again is linked to historical persecution and other similar factors. This can also explain why they have survived for so long in “hostile environments” like the Muslimworld and pre-20th century Europe. Many of the same “Jewish” principles are practised by Christian families though. An estimated 60-70% of Jews and around 10% of Christians focus on these important principles which are manifested in their social positions in society. These principles in upbringing and family orientation are therefore not really limited to Jews. In Ottoman Turkey, the Christian Armenian minority were equally successful, handling most of the banking and commerce (until the Muslims wiped them out). So I would rather say, let’s adapt instead of criticise. Obviously, camaraderie is bad and must be eliminated (Jewish Oligarchs in Russia is a very nasty example of this). But I agree with most of these principles/ethics and I fully support this mentality (Save/invest instead of spend+ focus on long term goals). Does that make me a Jew? For the sake of the argument (and knowing that NS’s are obsessed with ethnicity); I’m 100% of Nordic descent and a protestant Christian with no ties to any Jewish organisation which would cloud my judgement. I’m from the West side of Oslo, and most of my current friends are from privileged families (middle or higher middle class). There are many factors that separate us from lesser privileged families on the East side. The essential factors are the ethics and principles you adapt in your community. You don’t necessarily have to be from a privileged family to succeed, obviously, but the common factor is that you have to be able to identify these principles as early as possible in your life and adapt if you want to excel and be what you can be.

Q: Some “Ghandist/pacifist” members of the conservative resistance will claim that violence will not solve anything and will instead only give our enemies more rhetorical ammunition and make it easier for them to gain the moralground. They will finally be able to say; “terrorism has no religion”. “By using terror you are undermining your own struggle and hurting the nationalist cause”. How would you react to statements like this?

A: Well, first of all, I would tell him he obviously didn’t have a clue what he was talking about. Pacifist approaches have been tried in the past; in Lebanon where the Christians waited until the Muslims made up 60% of the population. The Copts in Egypt have been relatively pacifist and look what it got them… They are almost extinct due to their pacifist stance. The same can be said about the Christian Assyrians and Armenians. They waited and waited, like loyal little dhimmis and “hoped” for a better future, until the day the Muslims decided to massacre them. Ghandi pacifism worked against the Brits in India because Christian Europeans aren’t primitive barbarians… However, pacifism doesn’t work at all against an Islamic entity. As soon as they become a form a majority (and this will happen unless we can start the deportation campaigns in time) they will strike and eventually massacre us as history has shown again and again. A great majority of the European conservatives have chosen dialogue and pacifism since 1955 until today. And what exactly has it gotten us…? During the last 55 years of pacifistdialogue, the multiculturalists have been allowed to open the gates and flooded our ancestral lands with 30 million Muslims and they even continue to do so today. Should we perhaps try dialogue for another 40 years and see what that brings us…? Only a suicidal individual would accept this. Not acting would be the biggest of all crimes. The time for dialogue is over for an increasing number of Western Europeans. The European civil war will progress the coming decades and our traitor enemies will eventually be defeated and executed.

Q: How did you first get involved in your current activities?

A: Well, I gained awareness of certain issues at that time. My best friend for many years, a Muslim, had lived his whole life in Oslo West with limited contact with the Norwegian-Pakistani community. Yet, he and more or less 100% of youngsters like him still failed in many ways to be integrated. He attended Urdu classes at school from early childhood. He went to the mosque occasionally after he was 12. Like most Norwegian-Pakistanis he felt really torn between the Norwegian community and the Pakistani community. However, I was wrong when assuming that he would chose to follow my path and the Norwegian way. I understood early that he resented Norwegians and the Norwegian society. Not because he was jealous, after all he could have conformed if he wanted to. He resented it because it represented the exact opposite of Islamic ways. Shortly after we broke of contact he left «JT» and «R» and started hanging out with his cousin and other Pakistanis. Since then he has been a part of the Pakistani community in Oslo and has, as far as I know, minimal contact with the Norwegian community. Since then he and his Muslim friends have beaten and harassed several ethnic Norwegians, one of them being my friend, «K». According to «K», «A» and a bunch of Pakistanis tried to rob him (See: Jizya). When he refused to pay them, they beat him badly. Luckily, there were witnesses around and this incident in addition to «A»s other acts of violence against ethnic Norwegians resulted in him being incarcerated for 6 months. Another incident, which was confirmed from reliable sources, happened on New Year’s Eve in Frognerparken, Oslo. «A» and his Pakistani friends allegedly gang raped an ethnic Norwegian girl. I believe this was in 95 or 96. As far as I know, they were never charged with this crime due to the lack of witnesses.Muslim girls were off limits to everyone, even the Muslim boys. The only available“commodity” at this point was therefore ethnic Norwegian girls, referred to as “whores”. Due to the tolerance indoctrinated through Norwegian upbringing – girls aren’t broughtup to be sceptics, racists or anti-immigrant, just like most boys. They are all brought upto be very tolerant. As a result, many ethnic Norwegian girls, especially in Muslimdominated areas, despise ethnic Norwegian boys because they consider them as weak and inferior with lack of pride, seeing as they are systematically “subdued” by the“superior Muslim boys”. Ironically, Muslim boys are raised to view Norwegian girls as inferior “whores”. Their only purpose is to bring pleasure until the Muslim guys are around 20-25 when they will find a pure, “superior” Muslim girl, a virgin. At this point, the ethnic Norwegian “whores” is discarded, and most of the girls go back to their old “tribe”. They are welcomed back in the name of tolerance. More or less all Muslim parents will tell their sons the following: “You can have fun with the Norwegian whores, as long as you marry a Muslim”. If, against all odds, a Muslim guy wants to marry one of these “whores”, she has to convert to Islam – no exception. The Muslim girls however are guarded by their male family members like they were made ofpure gold. If a Muslim girl, against all odds, engages in a relationship with an ethnic Norwegian guy, then the Muslim males from her family or “tribe” will kill her or forcefully take her to their country of origin to be “educated” for a few years. They will attempt to lure her on a vacation to Pakistan, Morocco, Somalia etc. and possibly kill her there, if she still refuses to conform. An alternative strategy is to forcefully marry her off to a local Muslim guy and keep her in their country of origin until she is sufficiently “tied down”through impregnating her and systematical indoctrination. When she is “tied down” with 2 or more children there isn’t much she can do. Also, it’s not very risky to kill Muslim girls in Muslim countries as most government officials are corrupt and “very understanding”, especially in cases where a family wants to “restore their pride”. This is the main reason why Muslim girls are occasionally sent back to their country of origin, in order to prevent them from becoming too “European”. They are often sent back to Europe, after several years of abduction and indoctrination when they are sufficiently subdued and under control of the Muslim society. It’s not very tempting for Muslim girls to file a divorce and risk getting frozen out of the Muslim community or risk getting killed when they have 2-4 children. I also remember from my earlier childhood, two Pakistani and one Turkish girl from Smestad school, the primary school I attended; «B», «M» and «E». «B» was «F», my friend’s, sister, I didn’t know «M» although she was my neighbour, but I used to play with «E», «O»s sister. At that time there were three Pakistani families in that area and one Turkish, all except the latter lived in publicly subsidised apartments, in accordance with the government’s integration program. I remember the day when «M»s chair was empty. We didn’t get an answer from our teacher regarding her whereabouts. She was supposed to have returned from her summer vacation in Pakistan. The next year «E» was sent to Turkey. I heard her father thought she had become “too Norwegian”. A few years later, the exact same thing happened with «B». One day she didn’t show up for school after her vacation in Pakistan. I was only 10 years old at that time and didn’t really know what was going on. In retrospect I know that they were sent back to their country of origin, and no one as far as I know has heard from them again.They were most likely either married away at young age or killed. I know exactly where those families live(d) and I know for a fact that they vanished and didn’t return for several years. At this point I knew nothing about Islam. I only learned at school that Islam was peaceful and tolerant, very similar to Christianity. I was therefore unable to make the correct conclusions and identify that both «B» and «M» had in fact been abducted. Anyway, back to the topic. When I was around 16-17 years old I joined the ProgressParty Youth organisation (FpU) as they were anti-immigration and pro-free-market. Every single journalist in the country regarded them as racist because of their anti-immigrationprogram. FrP were under constant attacks from every single media organisation, NGO’s and all the other political parties. They were called racists and Nazis and were generally labelled as “fascist pigs”. FrP appealed to me because I had experienced the hypocrisy in society first hand and I knew already then that they were the only party who opposed multiculturalism. It became obvious to me early on that the hypocrisy in society was so prevalent and overwhelming. I now started to see the connection between Islam, Western media, the extreme left and the government. I started studying Islamism, Socialism, egalitarianism and other directions of Political Science and became more aware of what was going on. I then, for the first time, understood why I hadn’t learned anything of relevance about Islam at school, and the motives for suppressing the truth on these issues – political correctness. Around year 2000 I realised that the democratic struggle against the Islamisation of Europe, European multiculturalism was lost. It had gone too far. It is simply not possible to compete democratically with regimes who import millions of voters. 40 years of dialogue with the cultural Marxists/multiculturalists had ended up as a disaster. It would now only take 50-70 years before we, the Europeans are in a minority. As soon as I realised this I decided to explore alternative forms of opposition. Protesting is saying that you disagree. Resistance is saying you will put a stop to this. I decided I wanted to join the resistance movement. However, the main problem then was that there weren’t any alternatives for me at all. There weren’t any known armed cultural conservative, or Christian, anti-Jihadmovements. An NS or racist/anti Jewish movement was completely out of the question, as they represented much of what I oppose. I came in contact with Serbian cultural conservatives through the internet. This initial contact would eventually result in my contact with several key individuals all over Europe and the forming of the group who would later establish the military order and tribunal, PCCTS, Knights Templar. I remember they did a complete screening and background check to ensure I was of the desired calibre. Two of them had reservations against inviting me due to my young age but the leader of the group insisted on my candidature. According to one of them, they were considering several hundred individuals throughout Europe for a training course. I met with them for the first time in London and later on two occasions in Balticum. I had the privilege of meeting one of the greatest living war heroes of Europe at the time, a Serbian crusader and war hero who had killed many Muslims in battle. Due to EU persecution for alleged crimes against Muslims he was living at one point in Liberia. I visited him in Monrovia once, just before the founding session in London, 2002. I was the youngest one there, 23 years old at the time. One of the key founders instructed the rest of the group about several topics related to the goal of the organisation. I believe I scribbled down more than 50 full pages of notes regarding all possible related topics. Much of these notes are forwarded in the book 2083. It was basically a detailed long term plan on how to seize power in Western Europe. I did not fully comprehend at the time how privileged I was to be in the company of some of the most brilliant political and military tacticians of Europe. Some of us were unfamiliar with each other beforehand so I guess we all took a high risk meeting face to face. There were only 5 people in London re-founding the order and tribunal (1 by proxy) but there were around 25-30 attending in Balticum during the two sessions, individuals from all over Europe; Germany, France, Sweden, the UK, Denmark, Balticum, Benelux, Spain, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Austria, Armenia, Lebanon and Russia. Electronic or telephonic communication was completely prohibited, before, during and after the meetings. On our last meeting it was emphasised clearly that we cut off contact indefinitely. Any type of contact with other cells was strictly prohibited. This was not sessions were regular combat cells were created. It was more like a trainingcourse for pioneer cell commanders. We were not instructed to attack specific targets, quite the opposite. We were encouraged to rather use the information distributed to contribute to build and expand the so called ”cultural conservative anti-Jihad movement, either through spreading propaganda, provide funding for the creation of new groups through various forums or by recruiting other people directly. All individuals attending the sessions learned about PCCTS, the Knights Templar but they were not specifically instructed to represent that particular order and tribunal. Everyone was encouraged but at the end, it was their own decision how they decided to manifest their resistance. A special emphasis was put on the long term nature of the struggle (50-100 years). Our task was to contribute to a long term approach and not to act prematurely. If there was a large scale attack the next 10 years it was said, we should avoid any immediate follow up attacks as it would negate the shock effect of the subsequent attacks. A large successful attack every 5-12 years was optimal depending on available forces. This was not a stereotypical “right wing” meeting full of underprivileged racist skinheads with a short temper, but quite the opposite. Most of them were successful entrepreneurs, business or political leaders, some with families, most of them Christian conservatives but also some agnostics and even atheists. I remember it struck me how impressed I was regarding how they had set up the screening parameters (for accepting new candidates). They obviously wanted resourceful pragmatical individuals who were able to keep information away from their loved ones and who were not in any way flagged by their governments. Every one of them was supportive of a Judeo Christian Europe and did not have any reservations against cooperating with non-European Christians Hindu or Buddhist nationalists. I had or have a relatively close relationship with at least one of them, an Englishman, who became my mentor. He was the one who first described the“perfect knight” and had written the initial fundament for this compendium. I was asked, not only once but twice, by my mentor; let’s call him Richard, to write a second edition of his compendium about the new European Knighthood. As such, I spent several years to create an economic platform which would allow me to study and write a second edition. And as of now, I have spent more than three years completing this second edition.

Q: Why did you have so many non-ethnic Norwegian friends?

A: I remember that pride and certain moral codexes/principles have always been very important to me. As a result, individuals with these traits appealed to me. If I ever got into trouble I expected my friends to back me up 100% without submitting or running away, as I would for them. Very few ethnic Norwegians shared these principles. They would either “sissy out”, allow themselves to be subdued or run away when facing a threat. This was an unacceptable scenario for me. If anyone threatened me or my friends, regardless if we were at a disadvantage, we would rather face our foes than to submit and lose face. If we did get beaten we would just rally our allies and get back at them later. Pride was more important than anything. This type of attitude gave us a big advantage. No one would risk messing with us, even the kids 2 years older. The majority of people who shared these principles of pride was the Muslim youths and the occasional skinhead. However, even back then, the Muslims outnumbered the skinheads 20 to 1. Being a skinhead was never an option for me. Their dress codes and taste of music was unappealing and I thought they were too extreme. I hated rock then and I still do.

Q: How would you describe yourself as a person?

A: I consider myself to be a laid back type and quite tolerant on most issues. Due to the fact that I have been exposed to decades of multicultural indoctrination I feel a need to emphasise that I am not in fact a racist and never have been. My Godmother (being baptised when I was 15 years old), «A» and her husband, came to Norway as political refugees from Chile. In retrospect I understood that they were Marxist political activists but I didn’t comprehend these issues at the time. Our two families have been very close throughout my childhood and youth. I’ve had several non-Norwegian and Muslim friends. I spent a lot of time with «O», a Turk, «J» an Eritrean, «R» and «N» from Chile, «A», «F» and «W» from Pakistan. I’ve had dozens of non-Norwegian friends during my younger years, «B» from Somalia, «P» from Chile, «O»– adopted from Columbia, Lene– adopted from India have been good friends and a couple of them still are today.

Lettere å slippe unna

Politikere slipper lettere unna en bløff enn før. Det var budskapet politiker Erna Solberg hadde til deltakerne på journalistkonferansen SKUP i Tønsberg i går. (Aftenposten). Hun ønsket seg visst mer faktasjekkende journalister.

Journalister har ikke tid, eller de har ikke kunnskap eller de velger å ikke prioritere tidkrevende og sikkert kjedelig faktasjekk. Dagen etter demonstreres dette tydelig i en annen avis.

Justisminister Knut Storberget presenteres i VG under tittelen «mindre kriminalitet enn på 20 år».

Faksimile VG.

Saken er ikke så enkel som de som stoler på NTB-artikkelen måtte tro. Selv om politikere slipper lettere unna journalisters kritiske faktasjekk og heller blir del i deres felles underholdningsleveranser, bør ikke journalister slippe like billig unna sitt opplysningsansvar.

Informasjon er hentet fra politiets tidsskrift Norsk politi nr 1/2011. (Mine uthevinger.) Samme kilde som journalisten og Knut Storberget bruker for å fremstille saken utelukkende positivt for Storberget.

Der fortelles ikke helt det samme som Knut Storberget/NTB/VG forteller. Noen har underslått viktige opplysninger.

I artikkelen i Norsk politi uttaler en av SSB-forskerne: «Det er ingen tvil om at det er betydelige mørketall i politiets anmeldt-statistikk, sier Stian Lid.»

Tallet på innleverte anmeldelser sier altså ikke hele sannheten om antall lovbrudd. Når det er så stor nedgang i anmeldte vinningslovbrudd kan dette også skyldes faktorer som:

  • Folk gidder ikke anmelde tyveri fordi de ikke forventer at politiet klarer oppklare det allikevel.
  • Politiet oppfordrer folk til å ikke anmelde vinningsforbrytelser fordi de uansett ikke kommer til å prioritere det foran saker om liv og helse. (Oppfordringene kommer muntlig i telefonsamtaler eller ved oppmøte på politikammeret, og er vanskelig dokumenterbart for de som leser kun statistikker på leverte anmeldelser).

En indikasjon på dette kan man tolke seg til mellom linjene i originalartikkelen. Lav oppklaringsprosent på vinning i forhold til verre kriminalitet kan si noe om prioritering:

«Fordi vinning utgjør halvparten av alle anmeldte lovbrudd, har nedgangen stor betydning for landets samlede kriminalstatistikk. Samtidig er det verdt å merke seg at vinning er den kategorien anmeldte saker hvor politiet har dårligst oppklaringsprosent, 16,6 prosent i 2010. Til sammenlikning har voldssaker en oppklaringsprosent på 58.»

Mer om prioritering: VG: Valen fikk politiet på døren etter fartsbot.

Artikkelen i polititidsskriftet forteller videre:

«Mange unnlater å anmelde

Noe av nedgangen i antall vinningsforbrytelser skyldes liten tiltro til at politiet vil etterforske. Ifølge Politiets nasjonale innbyggerundersøkelse i 2010 er mangel på tiltro til at politiet vil etterforske, den klart viktigste grunnen til at folk ikke anmelder vinningsforbrytelser. Ifølge SSBs Levekårsundersøkelse blir halvparten (53 prosent) av alle tyverier og skadeverk anmeldt. Andelen ser ut til å være synkende.»

Politiets nasjonale innbyggerundersøkelse fra 2010 viser at hele 77 prosent har inntrykk av at det er blitt mer kriminalitet i Norge det siste året. Det sier noe om hvordan publikum opplever det. Hvordan publikum opplever situasjonen avviker altså sterkt fra det bildet journalisten fortegner. Vinner den forøvrig ikke navngitte NTB- journalisten tillit på det viset?

Voldsforbrytelser opp 21 prosent

Statistikken justisminister Knut Storberget heller ikke presenterer i VG viser at voldsforbrytelser har gått opp med 21 %.

Også her er det store mørketall. Fra polititidskriftet:

«Beregninger gjort med grunnlag i SSBs levekårsundersøkelse, anslår at det i Norge forekommer ca. 165 000 voldsepisoderi året. Det er fem ganger mer enn antall anmeldte tilfeller. Politiets nasjonale innbyggerundersøkelsefra 2009 viser også at det er svært mange voldsepisoder som politiet ikke får kjennskap til. Omtrent tre av fem som oppga å ha vært utsatt for vold eller trusler om vold siste år, hadde ikke anmeldt det til politiet.»

Seksualforbrytelser opp 38 prosent

Anmeldte seksualforbrytelser har gått opp 38 prosent. Politidirektoratet forventer at fokuset på særlig seksuelle overgrep mot barn vil medføre en ytterligere økning i anmeldte saker, ifølge kilden NTB/VG/Storberget av en eller annen grunn ikke gjengir noe fra på dette temaet.

Ulik narkotikapolitikk fra politidistrikt til politidistrikt?

Mens statistikken viser 4 prosent nedgang i antall anmeldte narkotikalovbrudd, stiller SSBs statistikere spørsmål ved om politiet opptrer ulikt i politidistriktene når det gjelder hva de lar passere og hva de gidder anmelde.

«SSBs analytikere har merket seg at det registreres relativt få tilfeller av narkotikabruk i kommuner med mer enn 50 000 innbyggere. I de største byene ser det ut til å være en noe annen registrering og rettslig straffeforfølging av narkotikabruk, skriver SSB, som har sett på anmeldtstatistikken for 2005–2008.»

For de som ønsker å vite mer enn hva justisminister Knut Storberget og en ikke navngitt journalist plukker ut, finnes hele artikkelen i tidsskriftet Norsk politi nr 1/2011, side 6-23.

[polldaddy poll=4487823]

Mer om politi:

Bloggurat
Blogglisten
Blogglisten
Twingly BlogRank

Mer om kriminalitet:

VG: SV-topp krever politibeskyttelse til Amal Aden.

VL: Amal Aden trekker seg fra debatt. Truet etter å ha skrevet bok om kvinneundertrykking i norsk-somaliske miljø. Aftenposten: Drapstruet av somaliske menn. VG: Bevæpnede og maskerte menn ranet familie. Ble slått og påsatt strips. VG: Innbruddstallene stuper. 65 prosent færre boliginnbrudd i Oslo siden 2008. VG: Politiet: -Vi er blitt usynlige. VG: 22-åring tatt 41 ganger for kjøring uten førerkort. Nå tar politiet bilen. VL: Mindre kriminalitet enn på 20 år.

Det andre ikke vet

Makt gjør noe med enkelte mennesker. Mennesker som ellers er både fornuftige, empatiske, folkelige, uhøytidelige og åpne kan endre seg når de får makt eller når de ser utsikter til å oppnå enda høyere maktposisjoner. Mange har nok slike erfaringer fra både arbeidsliv og organisasjonsarbeid.

Dette tror jeg ikke utelukkende har noe med hvor de kommer fra, hvor de jobber, hvilket parti menneskene tilhører og så videre. De finnes nok i alle partier, om vi skal holde oss i partiverdenen.

Faksimile VG.

Allikevel tror jeg miljøet de vanker i kan påvirke de latente, iboende dårlige egenskapene. Eller er det egentlig i det hele tatt dårlige egenskaper å være så egoistisk og målbevisst at man utnytter andres passivitet, godtroenhet eller tillit til å nå egne mål og oppnå mer makt eller få beholde den makt man har?

Svaret på det spørsmålet vil variere, avhengig av hvem du spør. Avhengig av i hvilke miljøer du spør.

  • Noen dyrker selvfremmelse og selvrealisering, koste hva det koste vil. Mottoet kan være: «Det andre ikke vet at du gjør, har de ikke vondt av.» Begrensningen ligger ikke i egne etiske og  moralske verdier og indre bremser som sier at galt er galt uansett.  Begrensningen ligger i at det er helt greit bare så lenge andre ikke får vite det. Slike kan komme til å holde ting skjult så lenge det gavner deres egne maktambisjoner, men sparke den anklagede ut i ytterste mørke som en persona non grata når det de har skjult kommer frem i offentligheten, i frykt for at media kan skade deres egne ambisjoner.

  • Andre følger dydige idealer om å alltid ta hensyn til sin neste, forsake egne snevre interesser og være oppofrende i forhold til sine omgivelser, familie, arbeidsgiver, organisasjonsvenner og andre man omgås og kanskje har fått tillit fra. Selv om man har anledning til å gjøre noe som en selv kan nyte godt av på bekostning av andre, noe som ingen ser ut til å få vite, har de etiske og moralske verdier som bremser og overstyrer egoismen.

Derfor tror jeg ikke det er helt tilfeldig at man finner en større andel snille og oppofrende mennesker i for eksempel Frelsesarmeen enn i en bevegelse hvor egoismen er blitt dyrket nærmest som en gud. Enhver har ansvar for seg selv, men ikke lenger enn sin egen nesetipp, for der tar staten over ansvaret. Og staten gjør aldri nok for å hjelpe de andre, eller en selv. Kanskje er veistandarden der en selv kjører viktigere enn støtteundervisning på skolen også, hvis ens egne barn ikke har leseproblemer, men man har en dyr bil?

Hvis media oppleves som at de i større grad skriver om negative trekk forbundet med noen i et enkelt parti enn i andre partier, så kan dette skyldes flere ting:

  • Tilfeldigheter.
  • Personforfølgelse.
  • Media har slagside.
  • Det er større forekomst av slike saker i det miljøet.
  • Eller en kombinasjon av flere av disse.

Et eksempel for å illustrere:

Frelsesarmeen har over 1500 ansatte og over 8 000 medarbeidere i Norge når soldater og tilhørige regnes med. Fremskrittspartiet har ca 1600 folkevalgte.

Selv om Frelsesarmeens folk stadig omgås personer som kan være i tilstander der de er lette å utnytte, så virker det som om det er en himmelropende forskjell på antall saker med etiske brudd der i forhold til i partiet FrP.

Kan dette skyldes utelukkende at media forfølger FrP-ere, mens Frelsesarmeen går fri, eller kan det ha noe å gjøre med at det er ulikt verdigrunnlag og ulikt etisk og moralsk nivå i disse miljøene?

Media oppfordres til å se på også andre partier for å om mulig belyse dette.

Mer om etikk:

Mer om politikere:

Bloggurat
Blogglisten
Blogglisten
Twingly BlogRank

Mer:

VG: FrP utsetter intern gransking av partitoppers overholdelse av interne etiske retningslinjer til etter valget.

VG: Internt granskingsutvalg skal granske FrPs behandling. VG: Null oversikt over sex-anklager i FrP. VL: Seks av ti velgere mener FrP-ledelsen håndterte Birkedal-saken dårlig. 32 prosent av Frps velgere mener egen partiledelse håndterte det dårlig. 12 prosent mener de håndterte det bra. VG: FrP-politiker trekker seg i protest mot ledelsens dårlige håndtering av Birkedal-saken. VG: FrP-toppene flykter fra bråket. VG: FrP-politiker vurderer å anmelde jentene.

 

En høy pris

Farene ved svineinfluensaen var aldri i nærheten av å være så store som norske helsemyndigheter hevdet at de var.

Allerede «på hoppkanten» gjorde norske helsemyndigheter en stor feil. Det påvirket selvfølgelig hvordan «svevet» utviklet seg. Mange med selvstendig dømmekraft kunne se at håndteringen slett ikke så bra ut, men kritiske spørsmål ble avfeid som useriøst og «konspirasjonsteorier». Fasiten var jo allerede satt. Den hadde de innvidde personene i Folkehelseinstituttet vedtatt. De var urokkelige og sto på sitt … til de fant ut at det kunne være greit å skylde på media.

Mer i innlegget: En håpløs kamp.

Muligens kunne myndighetene ha hentet seg inn og endret kursen ved å ta selvkritikk da bommen ble åpenbar også for dem, for det ble den vel? Problemet er kanskje at evnen til å ta konstruktiv selvkritikk ikke virker særlig utbredt hos de som bommet. Dette blir kanskje ikke farlig før slike sitter med makt og myndighet over befolkningens helse, men bør slike folk få sitte med en slik makt?

Det var Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet som i januar 2010 ga Direktoratet for samfunnssikkerhet og beredskap oppdraget å foreta en evaluering av den nasjonale håndteringen av pandemien, virus A H1N1.

Hva vil departementet gjøre med evalueringen der en av konklusjonene altså er at myndighetene overdrev faren allerede fra første dag? Sørge for at fokus rettes mot andre konklusjoner?

Faksimile VG.

Bildet viser daværende helseminister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen (AP, til venstre),  overlege ved Folkehelseinstituttet Bjørn Iversen (i midten) og helsedirektør Bjørn Inge Larsen (til høyre) på vei inn til pressekonferansen 29. april 2009, der de skremte innbyggere og media med at 13 000 kunne dø av svineinfluensa det neste halvåret.

Det er den ene konklusjonen som er viktigst for innbyggerne og offentligheten. De andre konklusjonene er mer rettet mot myndighetenes eventuelle endringer i fremtidig planverk og rutiner.

Det er forholdsvis grunnleggende i all risikovurdering at man ikke bare tar høyde for et verstefallsscenario, men også i det minste planlegger for et mest sannsynlig scenario.

Det hadde ikke nasjonale helsemyndigheter gjort. Hos dem forelå kun ett  handlingsalternativ: FULL ALARM. Noe som naturlig nok ledet til et hysteri blant mange av de som stolte på Folkehelseinstituttet og Helsedirektoratet.

Hysteri blant enkelte som skal håndtere kriseberedskap er slett ikke betryggende. Media kunne blant annet fortelle om en rådmann som mistet dømmekraften fullstendig da han forsynte seg av vaksinene til prioriterte pasientgrupper og valgte å gi dem til seg selv og flere kommunale ledere som reellt sett slett ikke var i faresonen.

Mer: Ledelse uten gangsyn.

Hva skjer neste gang slike ledere gjør noe tilsvarende?

I en uvitenskapelig undersøkelse i et innlegg som ble publisert på denne bloggen 22. oktober 2009, har drøyt 80 prosent svart at de ikke har tillit til Folkehelseinstituttets håndtering.

Mer i innlegget: Folkehelseinstituttets troverdighet.

Kan nasjonale helsemyndigheter leve med at de har personer i ansvarlige posisjoner som har stelt seg slik at de har rotet bort en tillit som må antas å være ytterst nødvendig i tilfelle en virkelig krise skulle oppstå?

Og hva med media? Med ytterst få unntak satte journalister seg ikke så godt inn i saken at de kunne stille viktige spørsmål om premissene til hysterisprederne. Dermed ble det overfladisk dill og mer spredning av hysteri, men media har tross alt ingen særlig tillit å snakke om å ta vare på.

Mer om media og svineinfluensaen:

Til sist sitter vi igjen med helsemyndigheter som ser ut til å ha «gamblet på ett eneste  tall» (les ett scenario), og tapt hele innsatsen. For innbyggerne er det en høy pris. Allikevel kan prisen bli enda høyere hvis inkompetanse og manglende evne til å ta selvkritikk skal belønnes med fortsatt lederstillinger hos de samme helsemyndighetene.

Derimot kan man tildels bygge opp tillit igjen dersom man på en troverdig måte ser ut til å forstå at man virkelig har dummet seg ut.

Mer om svineinfluensa:

[polldaddy poll=3917788]

Bloggurat

Blogglisten

Twingly BlogRank

 

Mer:

VL: 300 alvorlig syke etter svineinfluansavaksinering i Norge.

Viktige offentlige interesser?

Oppdatert 5. november: TV 2: Foreslår å forby offentlige skattelister.

Hjelp! Nå gjelder det å holde øynene unna avisstativet når man skal handle de neste ukene. Verre blir det å unngå å få slengt overskriftene i ansiktet når man klikker seg inn på aviser og nettmedier som ser det som sin viktigste samfunnsoppgave akkurat i disse tider å fortelle oss alle hvor mye de mest klikkbare kjendisnavnene tjente i fjor.

Faksimile fra TV 2.

Faksimile fra TV 2.

Jeg vil ikke vite hvor mye «Jan Thomas» tjente. (Problemet er at når jeg ser et tall og et ansikt på avisforsiden i butikken, så husker jeg det, og glemmer at jeg gikk inn for å kjøpe hvitost og havregryn.) Jeg vil ikke vite hva Jan Thomas gjør til daglig heller. Jeg er faktisk heller ikke interessert i å vite hva Jan Thomas spiser til middag og hvordan han lager maten. Jan Thomas er totalt uinteressant for meg. Kall meg gjerne avviker.

Jeg forstår at det enten er meg eller mange av landets journalister som må være helt på villspor når det gjelder bruken av skattelistene og journalistens makt til å sette saker på dagsorden. Jeg synes faktisk ikke det er en viktig offentlig interesse å bruke spalteplass og sendetid på hva hundrevis av Jan Thomas-er måtte finne på å gjøre, tjene, spise, spare og innrette sine privatliv.

Fra Dagbladet: Hvorfor det er viktig

Fra Dagbladet: Hvorfor det er viktig

Det har etter mine begreper ingenting, null, nix, nada, å gjøre med «demokratisk kontroll» å legge skattelistene ut på internett. Førsteamanuensiser og redaktører som bruker «åpenhet rundt offentlig sektor» og «relevant og viktig journalistikk» som argument for at de skal kunne skrive og lese om sine «Jan Thomasers» ligning, er for feige til å innrømme at de har «Se&Hør-journalistikk» som målestokk og rettesnor for hva som er kremen av kritisk journalistikk om viktige offentlige interesser. Intellektuelt lavmål av førsteamanuensisen og redaktøren blir ikke høyere av at mange som lever av klikk og annonser sier det samme.

– Jeg er nesten sikker på at de som står bak bankkortsvindelen i Spania vil benytte seg av skattelistene i Norge, sier ekspert på ID-tyveri til skattebetaleren.no.

Bortsett fra å tilfredsstille enkeltes kikkermentalitet om 99 % av vanlige norske skattebetaleres private forhold, som ikke har gjort annet galt enn å betale skatten sin, så er det kun skurker som har noe å tjene på at skattelistene for personer uten offentlige verv, makt og interesser legges ut på internett. (Elden: Skattelistene en gave til kjeltringer. TV 2: Pengeutpressere går trolig etter skattelister.)

TV2s journalister er blant dem har problemer med å skille mellom kikking, slarv og journalistikk.

TV2s journalister er blant dem har problemer med å skille mellom kikking, slarv og journalistikk.

Kravet om såkalt demokratisk innsyn kan utmerket ivaretas ved at de som søker offentlige verv og makt, og dermed selv søker offentlighet, får sine opplysninger tilgjengeliggjort. Og hvorfor stanse ved ligningstallene, dersom dette er, som enkelte mediefolk og politikere hevder, prinsipielt viktig for å utøve demokratisk kontroll? Er det ikke minst like mye av offentlighetens interesse å få vite hvem Jens Stoltenberg snakker i telefon med hver av årets 365 dager, og ikke bare hva han krysset av på selvangivelsen? Eller hvem han spiser middag med? Eller hvor og når han bruker kredittkortene sine? Eller er Jan Thomas’ sysler viktigere for å gi en illusjon om en såkalt kritisk presse som vet å fokusere på viktige offentlige interesser?

Hvis innsyn og omtale av offentlige personers roller er så viktig, hvorfor spanderer ikke media da mer arbeidstid på offentlige maktpersoners mulige dobbeltroller? Eller mulig korrupsjon med offentlige midler? Mye av informasjonen er offentlig tilgjengelig, men journalistikk gir kanskje ikke like mange klikk på artikkelen som tanketomt kjendisslarv?

[polldaddy poll=2146812]

Nettavisen synes dette er viktig journalistikk: «Det vil si at du kan søke på samboeren, naboen, sjefen og alle kjendisene du kan komme på.»

 

Nettavisen kaller det kontroll av maktpersonene i samfunnet.

Nettavisen kaller det kontroll av maktpersonene i samfunnet.

Flere som har skrevet om temaet:

Iskwew: Klikkhorer gir kikkere nye muligheter.

Vox Populi: Grafsing vs samfunnsnytte.

 

 

 

Bloggurat

Blogglisten

Twingly BlogRank

Dine Penger: Har ingen oversikt om innsyn gir tips om skattesnyteri, som delvis skal begrunne ordningen.

Dine Penger: Stadig færre betaler formueskatt. TV 2: Journalister i USA sjokkert over norske skattelister.

TV 2: Ordfører: -Stapp skattelistene langt opp i ræva. (Befriende at en ordfører tør snakke rett fra levra. Selv om jeg er enig i premisset; at skattelistene ikke har noe på internett å gjøre, så er jeg ikke enig i ordførerens konklusjon, at det er bedre å stappe dem opp i ræva. Selv en harddisk som tar kun en brøkdel av opplysningene kan forvolde stor skade =0  Før journalistene ble avhengige av internett, den gangen de klarte å bla i papirer og besøke kommunehus/ ligningskontor, ble skattelistene kun lagt ut i papirform til gjennomsyn på stedet. Ingen redaktører mente det var udemokratisk at de ikke fikk hver sin versjon tilkjørt med lastebil i søkbar elektronisk form.)

VG  klarer å koble det klikkskapende ordet «sex» til skattetallene. Imponerende av journalisten å klare å manøvrere alt inn på det sporet. Men hva har dette med demokrati og viktig med åpenhet om skattetall å gjøre? Tullejournalistene fornekter seg ikke.

VGs innsats for det de gjerne vil kalle viktig journalistisk arbeid her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her,

TV 2s latterlige definisjon av viktig journalistisk arbeid ser du her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her, her,

TV 2 oppfordrer til å spionere på dine venner og har ordnet et system for automatisert snoking her. Kall det viktig journalistikk overfor samfunnstopper, det høres bedre ut enn snoking i vanlige folks privatliv. TV 2: Hva synes du om at skattelistene offentliggjøres på internett? TV 2: Advarer mot offentliggjøring av skattelister. VG, TV 2: Regjeringens ligninger. TV 2:  TV 2 sjefen tjente ni ganger mer enn  NRK-sjefen. (Hildrums lønn er ingen nyhet for andre enn TV 2s nyhetsjournalister). TU: Dette tjener byggtoppene. Dette tjener kristenredaktører og biskoper ifølge Vårt Land.

Norsk verdenssensasjon ikke avslørt av journalister

Dersom man ikke forstår hva tallene forteller, så kan man risikere å tro at det er 1666 svineinfluensasmittede i Norge nå, i følge Folkehelseinstituttets offisielle oversikt, hentet ut fra MSIS 10. oktober 2009. (Oppdatert: 1975 pr 21. oktober, VG.)

msis_smittede_101009

Journalister har de siste månedene stadig gjengitt smittetallene på en måte som avslører hva de ikke forstår.

Aller først: Svineinfluensa er jo en forholdsvis mild influensa for de aller fleste. Siden det ikke lenger foretas tester av alle mistenkte svineinfluensatilfeller, er det trolig mørketall. Jo større mørketallene er, jo lavere er dødeligheten av svineinfluensaen, fordi det betyr at enda flere er eller har vært syke uten at de har hatt behov for sykehusbehandling, og dermed blitt sikkert diagnostisert.

Mellom 90  og 95 prosent av de analyserte prøvene med mistanke om svineinfluensasmitte de siste ukene har vist seg å ikke være svineinfluensa. Det betyr at de færreste prøvene som legene mistenker å kunne være det, er av denne typen.

De offisielle smittetallene fra Folkehelseinstituttet (FHI) er derfor kun en summering av bekreftede positive prøver. Selv om en av de foreløpig seks døde ikke var registrert smittet, bør man anta at de verst rammede inngår i disse tallene, dersom man stoler på helsemyndighetenes rutiner.

I motsetning til hva enkelte journalister later til å tro, så er tallene ingen daglig situasjonsrapport over antall smittede. Derimot er det en kumulativ rapport over antall smittede i løpet av dette året. (Smittede i mai+ smittede i juni+ smittede i juli etc). Tallene vil derfor bli høyere jo lenger ut i året man kommer. Det betyr ikke at det nødvendigvis er flere som snufser og er smittet i oktober enn det var i juli. Det betyr heller ikke nødvendigvis at smitten sprer seg raskere i oktober enn i juli, selv om det vil være naturlig med mer influensasmitte i influensasesongen enn utenom.

Her er smittede pr måned:

msis_maaned_antall

Selvfølgelig kan feilregistreringer forekomme. Noen er lettere å avsløre som feil enn andre. Over ser dere at FHIs offisielle statistikk forteller at første registrerte svineinfluensatilfellet i Norge var  allerede i oktober 2008. Uansett om det er en verdenssensasjon eller en feilregistrering så er det ikke egnet til å øke tilliten til medias evne til å avdekke  eller til FHIs og norske helsemyndigheters registreringskvalitet.

Ytterligere søk i databasen avslører at det er en gutt i aldersgruppen 10-19 år i Hordaland, med ukjent smittested, som er blitt ført slik i FHIs smittestatistikk.

Hvilke andre feilregistreringer som ligger mer skjult, vet kanskje ingen. Hvorfor oppdager ikke kritiske journalister en gang slike åpenbare feil? Er det fordi de er for lite kritiske og ikke undersøker nok i forhold til hva autoriteter innen svineinfluensa forteller?

Pr 10. oktober har det vært 60 registrerte svineinfluensasmittede hittil denne måneden. De som har vært syke hittil i år, må vi anta er blitt friske, bortsett fra de få alvorlig rammede som ligger på sykehus (totalt åtte i uke 40, hvorav fem på intensivavdelinger). (Oppdatert 19. oktober: 101 på sykehus hittil, hvorav tilsammen 18 på intensivavdelinger. De aller fleste i løpet av høsten. VG forteller det på en litt annen måte.)

Dersom man skal angi hvor mange smittede det er på en bestemt dag, er Folkehelseinstituttets MSIS egentlig et uegnet redskap. Man kan imidlertid altså se hvor mange registrerte smittede det er i inneværende måned, men det forteller ikke hvor mange av de registrerte smittede om allerede er blitt friske.

sis101009Kjonn_alder

Nesten tre av fire smittede (73 prosent) er under 30 år. Alle aldersgrupper under ett er det en liten overvekt av menn (52%). I gruppen under 30 år er det over 54 prosent menn. I gruppen 30-50 år er det derimot en større overrepresentasjon av kvinner (56 prosent).

msis101009_fylke_kjonn

Det er tildels store forskjeller fra fylke til fylke, men særlig med små tall kan tilfeldigheter gi store utslag. Det kan også være ulik geografisk terskel for å registrere seg syk eller frykte viruset. Et raskt overslag i forhold til folketall viser at særlig Vest-Agder og Sør-Trøndelag har forholdsvis flere registrerte smittede enn andre fylker.

Det er forholdsvis enkelt å hente ut informasjon i MSIS, synes jeg. Hvorfor enkelte journalister ikke klarer det, eller ikke vil bruke korrekte tall, får man bare lure på. Det trenger ikke være at de har lyst til å lure leserne. Det kan like gjerne være at journalistene som bruker feil tall ikke forstår bedre, dessverre.

Oppdatert:  Spredning av vanlig forkjølelsesvirus kan ha hindret svineinfluensaen i å spre seg. Det konkluderer svenske Smyttskyddsinstituttet (omtrent tilsvarende vårt FHI) i en fersk studie (BLT). Årsaken er at når et virus har kommet inn i luftveiene så klarer ikke et annet virus å trenge inn og vokse.

En meget interessant nyhet. Hvor lang tid tar det før norske journalister oppfatter den?

Mer: Avlys svineinfluensahysteriet.

 

Bloggurat

Blogglisten

Twingly BlogRank

VG: Sprøyter og vaksiner er sendt til ulike steder. Massevaksinasjon forsinket.

Mindre og mindre farlig? For et halvt år siden fryktet helsemyndighetene at 13 000 nordmenn skulle dø innen oktober. Det ble en gedigen skivebom. Nå «frykter» de 500 døde i neste bølge (TV 2). Og samtidig frykter de kanskje å sitte igjen med mange ubrukte og unødvendige (bortkastede) vaksiner og et omdømmetap. Hva frykter de mest?

Vet ikke helt når eller om den kommer i så alvorlig omfang som spådd, og hvor mange som smittes eller dør, men den varer i tre år. Det er bra sikkert. (TV 2).

Flere soldater snufser. Alarm melder morobladet VG.

TV 2: Nå står ikke verden til påske. Barn har fått influensasymptomer etter leirskoleopphold i guffent høstvær. En oppsiktsvekkende nyhet.

VG: Vaksinen klar, men gravide Nina må vente.

Vårt Land: Åtte døde av svineinfluensa. ( 12 992 færre enn helsemyndighetene spådde for et halvt år siden.)

VG, TV 2: Akershus-kvinne i risikogruppe døde av svineinfluensa.

TV 2: Egen vaksine for regjering, militære og noen statsansatte.

TV 2, VG: Seks av ti sier nei til vaksinen.

VG: Norsk folkehelseinstitutt vurderer å gå ut med generell vaksineoppfordring til alle.

TV 2: FHI: Influensa farligere enn vaksine.

VG: Leder av USAs nasjonale helseinstitutt: Vaksinen er usedvanlig trygg.

VG: Avlsbønder frykter økonomiske tap. TV 2: Dempet frykt for smitte på grisebesetninger.

VG: Zuccarello: -Jeg har ikke svineinfluensa. (I likhet med omtrent 4,8 millioner andre nordmenn.) VG: Håndballag utslått med influensasymptomer.

Vårt Land: 1400 griser nødslaktes av influensafrykt. VG, TV2: 800 griser slaktes av frykt. TV 2, VG: Svinesjefer vil stanse smitte med masseslakt. TV 2, VG: Ny grisefarm rammet. Brekk synes det er alvorlig at til og med griser kan bli forkjølet. TV 2: Grisebonde: -Må prioriteres i vaksinekøen. TV 2: 50 000 doser svineinfluensavaksine klar til bruk. Venter med nedslakting (av griser). VG: Venter med å beordre nedslakting. Svineprodusenter får ikke vaksineprioritet. Vurderer masseslakt. TV 2, VG: Mulig influensa i enda en grisebesetning. VG: Første norske svin er smittet av svineinfluensa.

VG: Leger nekter å sette svineinfluensavaksiner hvis de ikke får lov til å ta mer betalt enn en ny forskrift sier. Også i Sverige er det strid om betaling for vaksiner, men der er det ulike forvaltningsnivåer som strides.

VG: FHI skremt over komplikasjoner hos gravide. FHI ber gravide vaksinere seg mot svineinfluensa på grunn av nedsatt immunforsvar.