The left was given free rein and took control. Now, whenever a movement emerges on the right, it is branded as illegitimate. This is what we are facing in our dispute with the Editors’ Association.
From sleet on Saturday to blazing sunshine on Monday. The weather is almost indescribably lovely, but I’ve been indoors writing my reply to the Editors’ Association. I intend to publish it on the front page on Tuesday. I’ve already received requests to see the reply from someone who has called me out in *Journalisten*. We can’t be bothered to cater to those who don’t respect us. This matter has received so much attention that I feel fully entitled to publish the reply myself. Reidun (Kjelling Nybø, ed.) also said that was perfectly fine.
The crucial question is what sort of public sphere we should have. Who should be given a voice? And what happens when people who do not toe the line refuse to conform?
The left was given a voice
Conservative Norway tolerated the left. They were given a platform, and they took over the commanding heights of the press, publishing and cultural life – and, in time, politics too. Now a right-wing wave is rising. And by that I do not mean Ine Eriksen Søreide. I mean the movement to the right of the Conservative Party: the Progress Party (FrP), but also those further to the right. The response from those in power is to brand them as the ‘far right’. Then you are deemed illegitimate.
It is a risky game. Yet no one in the Norwegian establishment is willing to reflect on where this is leading us. We need only look to Germany, where there are serious discussions about banning a party with a very large voter base. That’s when the establishment has reached breaking point.
We’re seeing similar trends here. I fear that Støre and the Conservative Party are so afraid of losing power that they may end up accepting measures they would otherwise have claimed were unthinkable. In the podcast, I also ask the uncomfortable question of how far they would go if they felt their hold on power was seriously threatened.
This is what I wish to argue to the Editors’ Association: You tolerated the far left in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. But when you encounter a similar movement on the right, you are unable to stomach it. And we’re not talking about an armed revolution. In that case, we as democrats must say: We cannot help you. You need to take a step back and think.
Who gets to see their file?
When Erling Folkvord was elected to the Storting as a representative for the Red Electoral Alliance in 1993, he wanted to see his file. He was allowed to, and it attracted a great deal of attention. I see no comparable attention being paid to people on the right who want to know whether they are being monitored. It now seems to have been accepted that the so-called far right should be monitored. That is a case of double standards that deserves to be discussed.
You don’t need to go to the UK to spot the difference between Jørgen Hattemaker and King Solomon. I believe that here, too, we have a system of double standards, where those in power grant themselves the authority to discipline their opponents. This can involve careers, promotions and being ostracised in various ways. We do not know the full extent of it. But in my view, we know enough to understand that this is a dark side to Norway. And far too little is said about it.
The media and the deep state
I refer to VG as the spearhead of the deep state in Norway. Gard Steiro has asked whether I mean that, and I have answered in the affirmative. When they pretend not to understand the concept, I perceive it as an attempt to leave it hanging in the air and brush it off as a conspiracy theory. In my view, that won’t do. We must be able to discuss the interplay between the media and the established power structures.
The US provides an important backdrop to my view on this. I believe the state apparatus’s opposition to Trump and the media’s coverage of it have shown just how serious the problem is. In my assessment, the Norwegian media have failed to provide the public with a sufficiently comprehensive picture of what has been going on. At the same time, impatience is growing amongst Trump’s own supporters. They want to see a reckoning, and they want to see those they believe have abused their power held to account. If Trump fails to bring about such a reckoning, I fear that faith in him will wane.
The mid-term elections on 3 November will give an indication of which way the wind is blowing. If he manages to retain control of both chambers, it will be a significant victory. In the podcast, I refer to Newt Gingrich’s very high assessment of the place in history that Trump could then occupy, after George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
Norway cannot do as it pleases
I am highly critical of the line taken by Jonas Gahr Støre and Espen Barth Eide towards Israel. I call it the ‘Hamas line’. In my view, Norway has moved in a direction that damages the country’s reputation and its relationship with the Jewish state. I also include the Nobel Peace Prize in this criticism. I believe that Norwegian opinion-makers do not understand how much damage the line I am criticising could do to Norway’s reputation. This is a topic we will return to.
If an import ban on goods from the West Bank is adopted with the penalties I mention in the podcast, I believe Norway could face sanctions from the Trump administration. That is my assessment of the risk. Such a development would have consequences far beyond Norway’s borders. Has the government lost touch with reality? Has the oil money gone to their heads, so that they think they can do absolutely whatever they want?
Norway is dependent on its relationship with the major financial markets and funds. It is not a one-way street. Wall Street and the financial markets can also punish Norway. Norwegian politicians must take this possibility on board.
The Church must steel the resolve of the people
I believe that the course towards an Islamised Norway has been set, and that it is the pace at which this happens that will vary. This is a serious concern which also relates to how the Church responds when it encounters Islam. In a news item I refer to, a priest is pictured standing alongside an imam outside the church. The message is that they must not only talk to one another, but adapt to one another. I perceive this as symptomatic. Note who says that the first step is the hardest. It is the priest, not the imam. I interpret this adaptation as a surrender, and I believe many Norwegians react to it without quite knowing what to say.
Priests, including those in the Catholic Church, must steel the congregation’s resolve. It is not enough to say that one merely preaches the Gospel, as if the Gospels had nothing to say about courage and about protecting the people for whom one is responsible. Jesus was no softie. As I see it, he would have defended his flock.
Stand firm in the storm
This is what we are facing. If they want to kick us out and deprive us of our funding, we cannot respond by watering down what we believe to be the truth about Norway and what our freedoms mean. That is completely impossible and unthinkable. We would then lose the respect and support we have so far enjoyed. And that is by no means insignificant.
We receive so many statements of support that it helps. The key here is to stand firm in the storm. Should we stand alone, we’ll have to take whatever comes our way.
This is Ibsen’s country. He knew what a mob was. He understood that people could be misled. In my view, attempts have been made to mislead Norwegians for many years, but the truth is beginning to emerge. It doesn’t go down as easily as it used to. Nevertheless, they want to control the media and public opinion. They don’t want anyone who doesn’t toe the line.
We cannot change the concept of truth to satisfy an organisation which, in my view, behaves exactly as it accuses us of being: activists.
We cannot compromise on the truth.
Ultimately, this comes down to an authority that stands above both the PFU and the Editors’ Association: we must fear God more than men. Norway has fallen so far that we must return to square one.
God’s peace.
This is an edited text taken from a transcript of a Skogpod episode dated 12 October 2026, and as such it is typical of the style and pattern of thought.
