A good friend of mine, an exceptionally well-read and well-educated social democrat of the old school, and about as far removed from a conspiracy theorist as it is possible to be, told me the other day a story that points in the direction of the deep state and its methods.
A few weeks ago, in the small town where he lives, he woke up in the middle of the night to find a group of non-Western individuals in the process of lighting a large bonfire against the wall of the house where he lives. It could have set the entire street ablaze. At the same time, a similar case of arson was reported on the other side of town. It appeared to have been coordinated.
He was, of course, shocked at having been subjected to an act of arson, and even more shocked that immigrant crime had come so close to home. Most people do not react until it affects them personally, their closest relatives, or their own neighbourhood.
But what shocked him most was that the municipality had already, early the following morning before anyone had got up, arrived on the scene and removed all traces. Nor was the incident reported in the local newspaper. It seemed as though the municipality had a clear plan to suppress the matter.
From time to time, the deep state involuntarily reveals itself. It is rarely a pretty sight, whether by blacking things out, rewriting them, or inventing alternative explanations. It is manipulation and the hidden power of which we occasionally catch a glimpse.
We sense that there is a plan behind it. Probably even a conspiracy. Someone is directing all this. We wonder who is behind the denial of facts, the rationalisations, and all the madness?
For we see that the institutions of the state are being used systematically to influence what we are to think, what we are to believe, and what we are to say! Over time, a pattern has emerged. They want to control the formation of opinion. It is so thorough, purposeful, and consistent that it is obviously about something more than isolated individual cases.
It came to the surface when Gro Harlem Brundtland (Labour Party) misspoke in an interview with Dagsavisen in December 2018 regarding the rise of alternative media. She said that “We are in the process of losing control over what people are being told.” She did not say it directly, that the elite had lost control over the flow of information and the formation of opinion, but that was obviously what she meant.
The year before, in March 2017, Christine Meyer (Conservative Party), who was then Director General of Statistics Norway (SSB), told Dagens Næringsliv that she would have declined to produce an immigration accounts report and calculate the economic consequences of immigration “because it could contribute to the stigmatisation of groups.” She thus openly acknowledged that SSB is politically directed in its choices regarding which social conditions SSB considers appropriate to report on, and which are to be passed over in silence.
In its population projections since the 1970s, SSB has consistently underreported the growth of the non-Western immigrant population. It has failed to report the enormous costs associated with non-Western immigration as a consequence of low labour market participation and the overconsumption of social benefits.
And SSB quite evidently deliberately refrains from making projections that would show that the ethnic Norwegian population will become a minority within a few decades if non-Western Muslim immigration continues as it does today. SSB is, in other words, politically directed!
Another recent example is the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir) draft guidance on gender diversity, published in the autumn of 2025 with recommendations on the use of gender-neutral language.
Bufdir recommends that people should no longer say ‘girl’ and ‘boy’, ‘daughter’ or ‘son’, but instead use words such as ‘child’ and ‘young person’. And instead of saying ‘mother’ and ‘father’, it recommends using ‘parent’ or ‘guardian’.
These language guidelines are directed at all teachers and employees in kindergartens and throughout the school system, employees of NAV, employees of the child welfare services, healthcare professionals and others in the health service, and, generally, all public-sector employees in central and local government.
In this way, Bufdir, and thereby the State, not only denies biological facts and the entire empirical scientific tradition from the Enlightenment to the present day. The State is actively seeking to direct our language in a particular direction in accordance with a particular ideology. They want our children no longer to say mother and father.
NRK has gone just as far when it comes to immigration. NRK’s multicultural glossary from 2014, also known as the “Blacklist”, provides advice and directives on language relating to immigration, ethnicity, and multiculturalism. The list distinguishes between terms that are ‘OK’, terms one ‘should be careful with’, and terms one ‘should not use’.
‘Second- and third-generation immigrant’ is not to be used. Persons born in Norway are to be referred to as ‘Norwegian’. Describing immigrants from Africa and Asia as ‘non-Western’ is likewise not permitted. The same applies to ‘coloured’. It is also taboo to use the terms ‘foreign-cultural’, ‘foreign-language-speaking’, ‘guest worker’, ‘xenophobic’, or anything containing ‘foreign’ in connection with immigration.
Nor should ‘Muslim appearance’ be used. In crime reporting, the ethnic background of the perpetrator is systematically omitted for fear that the substantial overrepresentation of the non-Western immigrant population in the crime statistics will lead to stigmatisation and implicit criticism of immigration policy.
NRK has formalised and institutionalised a clear strategic and editorial framework intended to promote the positive aspects of diversity, inclusion, and non-Western immigration, while downplaying the negative aspects. This is, in other words, propaganda for multiculturalism.
Other recommendations in NRK’s Blacklist include advice against using generalising expressions such as ‘the Somali community’, and to exercise caution when using expressions such as ‘the home country’ and ‘descendants of immigrants’.
The same applies to the immigration categories used by SSB. It categorically counts second-generation immigrants as Norwegian, despite the fact that this gives a completely distorted picture of the immigrant population.
This evokes not only associations with Orwellian Newspeak. In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak is the official, controlling language developed by the Party to restrict freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
The aim, by removing words and simplifying the language, is to make it impossible to think “thoughtcrimes”. Orwell also writes about this in Animal Farm, where the pigs devise language rules in order to manipulate the other animals and retain their own power.
What SSB, NRK, and Bufdir are engaged in is Newspeak! It is Newspeak designed to control language and restrict freedom of expression, and it is pure propaganda to promote their own ideology and retain power!
Globalism, multiculturalism, woke ideology, and identity politics have become Norway’s dominant state ideology. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Christine Meyer, and Hege Nilssen at Bufdir let the truth slip out. They are like the pigs in Animal Farm.
But who is behind them? Who planned the whole thing? Who is directing the operation? For it has now become so thorough and consistent that someone must be behind it.
Who told the municipality to clear the fire scene before people got up the next morning? Who has told SSB what statistics it should produce, and what it should keep away from? Who has told NRK and Bufdir which words they are to use, and which they are not to use?
Who are the chief pigs? Who, in Norway today, are Napoleon and Squealer really?