In an open letter published on Journalisten.no, a group of editor-activists from Morgenbladet declared that they were resigning from the Norwegian Editors’ Association because they did not like the opinions of another editor, namely Hans Rustad of Document. This protest does not work the other way round, even though Rustad does not like the opinions of the majority of the members – because the whole point of such an association is to meet across differences of opinion, attitudes and politics. Where is the problem?
‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ is commonly attributed to Voltaire, but it is irrelevant who said it first: It is important, Western and beautiful, and remains the very foundation of freedom of expression and tolerance – values that the editors Gundersen, Bergem and Ellefsen at Morgenbladet are fond of babbling about, and they are not alone, but it is obviously nothing more than decoration and glitter.
150,000 articles are irrelevant compared with a few offhand remarks in the woods
What editor Rustad has or has not said, in what context, and who agrees or disagrees, others can discuss. What matters is that over the course of decades, Document has published more than 150,000 articles by at least a hundred writers, the bulk of which are well-founded and thoroughly documented. All this broad, varied and important work is completely ignored by what we call ‘old media’ and the elite in Norway. The entire editorial staff and 20 years of work have been reduced to an offhand remark in the woods. The public notices such things!
Over ten years, I myself have published more than 1,000 articles and four books, which are also thoroughly founded and documented. These have largely been proved right all along, and could have saved the state and society at least NOK 1,000 billion if the MSM and NRK had picked up the ball and engaged in the debate – but they never did. The cancellation is total, regardless of how correct, right or important an article or statement is. Only when someone in the new media says something ‘wrong’ does Document become interesting. And thus the mainstream media prove the validity of the criticism directed at themselves. Every day.
Alternative media work for democracy and freedom of expression
This toxic culture is systemic and constant towards alternative media throughout Europe. This in turn means that people from the ‘shop floor’ see that entirely different forces are threatening freedom of expression, as they call for censorship in order to ‘save democracy’. It is disgusting, spineless and frightening. And yes: We know that there are many wild conspiracy theories swirling around out there. And some that are less wild. And some that actually deserve the question: ‘A strong claim, but what if it is true?’
Because what if it is true? What if corruption has become widespread in Norway? Because the results point in that direction. What if there is an elite in society that feathers its own nest and those of its peers? Because that is what it looks like. What if there are separate actors with common interests that constitute a ‘deep state’? Because that is what it seems like. What if there is a globalist agenda in the EU? Because history speaks for itself. What if the extremists are on the left rather than the right? Because that is what it sounds like. What if Muslims actually want sharia? Because they say so themselves. What if a ‘population replacement’ is taking place? Because that is what the figures show.
Should the press not care about this? If an editorial team claims that there is a threat to society and presents factors suggesting that this is correct – should other media not then become curious, investigate and shed light on it, rather than dismissing it, hushing it up or ridiculing it? Should that not generate plenty of open debate? And do rumours of such ‘conspiracies’ disappear if they are ignored and ridiculed? How is this supposed to work?
It is not Document. It is you!
And here we come to the core of my point (which will also be ignored, even though it is correct, right and important): Not only was ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ written and published in 1837 by the Danish author H.C. Andersen, and in it the Norwegian mainstream media are described perfectly. More than a hundred years earlier, in 1722, Ludvig Holberg wrote the comedy ‘Jeppe on the Hill’ (Jeppe på Bjerget), which contains the statement ‘Everyone says that Jeppe drinks, but no one asks why Jeppe drinks’.
Together with Voltaire’s ideas, this constitutes an intellectual heritage that the dandies of the mainstream media do not seem to understand, because they are herd animals who do not come up to the ankles of us free intellectuals. And they know it. That is why they never dare debate us before an open microphone. Instead, they shout ‘We want white bread!’ and resign from the Editors’ Association while whipping up the masses to answer ‘Crucify!’. After which they meet over red wine and wonder why both their credibility and circulation are failing. Well, can you imagine that?
So let me offer you the course ‘Democracy for Dummies’, with special-needs teaching for those of you in the back row. You are ridiculously easy prey for totalitarian forces, such as EU imperialism, socialism and Islam. And Klungtveit, who started this smear campaign, is the very model of such fanaticism, with all his lack of balance, generosity and willingness to include others. This left-wing extremist fool would TP-bomb us if it did not have consequences for his ego.
All together now: Standpoint, perspective and attitudes!
Hans Rustad is a Catholic and a deeply devout Christian. He has travelled the long road from the far left to conservatism (not the ‘far right’, as the mob says). And just as with all other people, this forms a basis for life that shapes both worldview, standpoint, perspective and perceptions. Where is the problem?
The essence is not whether Hans Rustad is right, wrong or spreads lies and conspiracy theories. The essence is that he has the right to hold the opinions he holds, and to say what he says. And he has the right to create a state-subsidised national newspaper based on this reality, which has come close to setting a Norwegian record for being a ‘Gazelle company’ (Gasellebedrift). Rustad has done this in good co-operation with both atheists and people who otherwise have different views on matters – because Document is not a sect. It is an editorial operation in search of news, facts, an audience and funding, like everyone else. Where is the problem?
If one vehemently disagrees, and is morally shaken that someone has a different view of reality from one’s own (as I am in relation to Islamists, EU supporters, the socialist crowd with ideas that serve Hamas’s interests, as well as people who drive white Teslas), that should in fact trigger immediate curiosity in democratic people. It should prompt questions and debate. Investigation and fact-checking.
It should not trigger bullying, hatred, harassment, indignation, ostracism and crucifixion. Because then one is on the side of barbarism. Understand? This is ‘Democracy for Dummies’. This is Western culture at its most superior. And it is also normal, civilised upbringing. So what the f… are you doing?! Pull yourselves together! I hope there are some grown-ups in the Editors’ Association. Honestly!
If you are absolutely right, why is debate dangerous?
If you encounter people whose opinions seem completely off the wall (and we all do, all the time, such as Islamists, EU supporters, left-wing extremists who serve Hamas’s interests and people who drive white Teslas), that only makes the debate EASY! Yes? If statements and opinions are so crazy that you laugh at them or are appalled by them, then smother them with open debate. Where is the problem? Strip the clown bare before an open microphone! If you really have all the answers, the truth and are obviously right – then it will merely be a parade march for your truth. See? Where is the problem?
And that is precisely where the echo-chamber triangle consisting of the mainstream media, the EU aristocracy in Norwegian politics, the deep state and their corrupt, feeding-trough parasites in Norwegian business chicken out. Because they are wrong, and worse still: They know it. Because they are a sect that instantly casts out its own if they post something wrong on social media. One wrong word, and you become national news overnight, with your career in ruins. There is internal discipline within the elite echo chamber, and we know this because Document has people on the inside. We have sources everywhere, like other editorial organisations.
There is no healthy working environment among the elite, all the way up to the government. They do not have the good arguments, and therefore do not risk making fools of themselves in front of opponents in open debate. Instead, they have to resort to tricks to protect themselves, their clique, as well as their power, their money, their prestige and their dinner parties. And they achieve that through ridicule, bullying, harassment, cancel culture and stigmatisation. Why? Because they can, and have nothing else to offer.
Please prove me wrong!? Create a real debate programme on NRK. Call it ‘Stupid Opinions from Document’, and we will come and debate anyone. No? No, I thought as much. I rest my case.
Cancelled for the tenth year
Let me also shed a few tears for my sick mother here: My warnings over ten years against climate policy have proved correct. In book form, too, I have been proved right all along, so why am I still cancelled over climate? Everyone says that Kent is against climate hysteria, but no one asks why Kent is against climate hysteria. Because that would destroy the climate hysteria. In a normally functioning society, job offers should have been pouring in as thick and fast as invitations to debates. But no. Why?
The mob is at all times dependent on having someone it can bully. Our society is no longer about freedom, democracy and free expression. Nor is it about facts, truth, science or documentation. It is about a ‘clique’ that amasses money, power and prestige for itself and one another here in Oslo, and no one is to be allowed to puncture that bubble. Because it is this that large parts of the population observe, and this is how groupthink and mass hysteria always work.
Open to debate, which never comes
Which brings us to the title of this analysis. ‘The state, it is I’ from 1661 has become the elite that is democracy in 2026: For it is they who are right. It is they who define the ‘truth’. And why debate people who are wrong when you yourself are absolutely right? It is simply a waste of time. This is how the elite has abolished nuances, viewpoints and standpoints. It is they who possess the high moral ground. It is they who set the standard for opinions. And it is they who want to shut down the comment sections for good, and ban social media for young people. And they are doing it for YOU! To protect democracy and the future!
Oh no, dear EU elite crowd: You are doing it for yourselves, as aristocracies always do. And no one is to be allowed to tear down the EU aristocracy. No one is to be allowed to step outside. Why? Because of power, money and prestige – that is how primitive it is behind the flood of beautiful words. ‘Conspiracy theory’, you say? But everyone can see what you do. Every alert citizen can see the results. That is why everyone is so bloody angry with the EU aristocracy in the comment sections – which you want to close in order to prevent the criticism from spreading even further. It is so ridiculously transparent!
That is why our comment section is open, and it will remain so. It is costly, labour-intensive and ranges from intellectual innovation to pure sewage, but we do our best with the resources we have. We are not afraid of the people’s opinions, debate, disagreement, freedom of expression or democracy. We are not afraid of facts, truths, empirical evidence, wild claims or conspiracy theories. We are happy to debate.
But the other side always fails to turn up for the debate. NRK does not want any genuine debate. The elite would rather stop the debate, the opposition and free media alike. That is precisely why free media are growing throughout Europe, along with new national-democratic parties.
