In the Norwegian Editors’ Association’s letter to Document, the concept of truth takes centre stage. The board claims that we are not truth-seekers. That is a bold claim, especially as it is not backed up by a single example.
Why not? In any other context, such a serious accusation would be undermined without examples. I suspect the answer is that it is because the editors and many journalists do not read us. Yet they ‘know’ what we write anyway.
How do they ‘know’ that? Based on their ‘woke’ intuition.
They know that we write the exact opposite of what they do: on Trump, immigration, climate, gender, demographics. And, of course, about Islam. But they cannot bear to engage with our specific articles.
Why not? It provokes too much internal resistance and the risk of cognitive dissonance. They would have to engage in an internal dialogue. Perhaps even start to have doubts.
Better to live a lie, then. That’s when the media become like trolls. They smell the blood of Christians. They instinctively shun narratives that go against them, that could tear away the very foundations they stand on.
They have great difficulty in portraying us accurately; even giving a truthful account goes against their grain.
This stifling of opposition is so that the vast majority can remain under the delusion that everything is in perfect order. The media simply won’t take the risk of allowing alternative viewpoints to be heard. That is why the comments sections are closed.
A corrective?
The question, in its simplicity, is this: Can the Editors’ Association tolerate a corrective? Or is there only room for one version?
All this talk of standards and press ethics is a smokescreen for this fundamental question.
Whose right is it?
In the 1960s, we asked the question: Whose right is it? Who said so? Who decided?
This stemmed from the realisation that even the law can serve other and multiple masters. At the time, it was framed within a class perspective.
But the same question remains valid today: to defend their legitimacy, all those in power must be able to justify their actions and be held to account.
But today’s press is not prepared to do that.
Now, only one answer is permitted:
The Norwegian Editors’ Association must decide whether it can tolerate a completely different portrayal of reality, or whether it wishes to shut down the public sphere and allow only one version.
This is a serious question.
I suspect the board is in two minds. If the association expels Document, it will send a signal that the Norwegian press cannot tolerate dissenting voices.
There are a myriad of signs pointing in that direction.
Gaute Skjervø kicked things off during Arendalsuka, where he was allowed to say that we are not journalists. We create ‘American-style conditions’. That’s a compliment to my ears, but perhaps it says something about why we are hated. We’ve been MAGA for ten years.
Trump has restored democracy in America, but according to the Secretary-General of the Editors’ Association, the American media landscape is ‘a wasteland’.
That’s when the gap in our perception of reality starts to widen.
Majority dictatorship
John Stuart Mill argues in defence of freedom of expression that democracy must take the risk of letting everyone have their say, for there is such a thing as the dictatorship of the majority. That is why there must be channels through which criticism can be voiced, and it cannot be the gatekeepers who decide who is allowed to speak.
Elementary, Watson, but forgotten in the new Norway, which is striding by leaps and bounds towards Islamisation.
Gaute Skjervø wanted us to lose our place in the Editors’ Association and our press subsidy. Presenter Lilla Sølhusvik turned her head towards the audience behind her: ‘Those who have the power to do so are sitting behind me.’
There is no great room for dissidents and heretics in Norwegian history. That is a great myth. Clinging to this myth in today’s situation could prove fatal.
We need all the dissent we can get.
Representation
When we consider the importance of being a member of the association, it naturally has something to do with representation. We live in a representative democracy; that is to say, many would argue that it does not work, that people do not have a say either in the media or in government and administration.
But if Document can be a member of the association, it will lend legitimacy to us and our views, and not least to our readers. It’s probably hard to admit that. But the press does not exist for its own sake. Its ultimate judge is the Norwegian people. The people also have a right to be heard, and not just to be exploited.
– I am also the king of the communists
Several years ago, we were contacted by the Royal Palace, which wanted to know what we stood for. I then explained our heretical view, emphasising Trump, and recalled what King Haakon VII had said when Christoffer Hornsrud became the first Prime Minister from the Labour Party: ‘I am also the king of the communists.’
It is a moving story from old Norway:
Following the parliamentary election in the autumn of 1927, the Labour Party had become the largest party in the Storting. The outgoing Prime Minister, Ivar Lykke (Conservative Party), advised the King to approach the Farmers’ Party instead. King Haakon nevertheless followed the rules of parliamentary procedure and asked Hornsrud to form a government.
At that time, the Labour Party was still revolutionary: it advocated armed revolution and stated in its government manifesto that its task was to prepare for the transition to a socialist society – without a monarchy. The decision met with strong opposition from the conservative side. The King is said to have stood his ground with the famous words: ‘I am also the King of the Communists’ – to emphasise that he was King of the whole people, not just of specific parties or groups.
The Hornsrud Government lasted only 18 days, but the episode is often cited as an important example of how Haakon adhered to constitutional principles even in his dealings with the revolutionary Labour Party, something which, in the long run, helped to consolidate the monarchy.
The bottom line?
This is precisely where the conflict lies, one which the Editors’ Association believes it can avoid by deluding itself that it can define the concept of truth in journalism and claim to hold the definitive answer.
That is the very definition of hubris.
The old Norway could afford to grant a revolutionary party the power to govern. The new Norway doubts whether it can tolerate an opposition body.
The old Norway tolerated communists; the new Norway believes that new Norwegians come from Afghanistan and that the ‘far right’ does not belong in the new community.
Sigurd Allern, editor of *Klassekampen*, was admitted to the association, despite a history of supporting genocide and armed revolution.
Now, support for a president who has made a historic comeback and won a landslide victory is not tolerated.
The Norwegian press does not recognise Trump’s legitimacy, just as it does not recognise ours.
They dismiss all views and values other than their own.
We wish to warn that the architects behind the ‘new Norway’ have embarked on a dangerous path.
Fiddling with the little Bible
During King Harald’s funeral, the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Norway, Olav Fykse Tveit, managed to omit the key words from ‘the Little Bible’, John 3:16: For God so loved the world that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Faith in Him was omitted. The renunciation and rejection of Christ took place in Oslo Cathedral before the eyes of the whole world. It was like Peter in the courtyard who denied Jesus: ‘I do not know Him.’
This is no coincidence. It was a statement. Fykse Tveit is Palestine. The Chief of Staff, Heian Engdal, is Palestine, as is his wife Marte. Barth Eide is Palestine.
When Jonas Gahr Støre looks out from his office, he looks down onto the square decorated by a Palestinian artist who paid tribute to the Hamas murderers on 7 October.
This is the new Norway. The defences have been breached.
We had a warning sign when NTNU professor Bassam Hussein got away with saying that 7 October was ‘the most beautiful thing that has happened in our century’.
At stake
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Navi Pillay shows that this is no mistake. This is who they are. This brings dishonour upon Norway. It is a threat to everything we hold dear.
It is an invitation to all those forces that seek to destroy our civilisation.
Yet large sections of the Norwegian media are enamoured with Islamofascism.
Pillay has called Israel’s war in Gaza genocide.
Iran killed 40,000–50,000 people between 8 and 9 January.
The Iranian ambassador is invited to the Royal Palace following the massacres.
Norway has ended up on the wrong side of history.
The nation is at stake.
Freedom of expression is under attack. Subscribe to the free and independent Document.
