On Wednesday 23 September, the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU) ruled against Rogalands Avis for publishing an opinion piece by Professor Anne Kalvig on gender and transgender people. In the piece, Kalvig wrote, amongst other things, that “delusions, mental ill-health, traumatic experiences, autism, male fetishes, porn-inspired misogyny and cultural abuse” were “lumped together” under the term “trans”. And for many people, this is the truth, based purely on observation. A perfectly legitimate opinion, based on their point of view and understanding of reality. What’s the problem?
It was the wording about pornography that prompted the PFU to react, but they overlook the evidence: there are men who themselves say they became trans because they have watched a certain type of porn. And you don’t have to look far to find websites featuring trans perversions that I neither wish to name nor describe. However, this stands as evidence – just as the Pride movement appears to reduce human identity to sexual desire and sexuality, so that mental health issues and outright perversions can be normalised in all their normlessness.
For ordinary people, this is neither healthy, democratic nor normal, and it never will be. This is the honest and legitimate viewpoint of many people. A standpoint and a perception of reality. A truth they have every right to hold, for there are many truths out there. Who has the right to control that? Bear that thought in mind.
On undemocratic attacks on viewpoints
I recently published the article «From ‘The State, that’s me’ to ‘Democracy is us!’”, which describes how the social elite increasingly seeks to define what is true and false, control public debate, and seeks to suppress alternative viewpoints, worldviews, perceptions of reality and opinions, thereby also eradicating the very basis for debate. And this is easy to prove: NRK did this officially in 2019 with its Soviet-style ‘zero point’ for journalism regarding the climate issue. That scandal is still ongoing.
This absurd notion that the elite should define the truth, and that everything else is ridiculous, wrong, dangerous, harmful or a conspiracy theory, is the very foundation upon which totalitarian states are built and maintained: that there is an «absolute truth», and that it is the authorities’ moral duty to administer this public truth. The PFU considered that the criticism of ‘trans madness’ breached section 4.3 of the Code of Conduct, which requires the press to show respect for people’s individuality and identity. On behalf of an unimaginable number of people, of course. Always.
Censorship and responsibility for speech in the service of the greater good
Totalitarian forces never admit that they impose censorship to protect themselves. No, no – they always impose it to protect society, the people, the children and democracy. Allegedly vulnerable groups are pushed in front of the dictatorship’s flower-adorned bulldozers, so that no one can, will or dares to protest. This is truly ‘dictatorship in drag’, and those driving the bulldozer – fuelled by the high-octane fuel of public morality – believe they are doing something important and right. Can you hear us in there at the PFU?
Since the elite are “the good guys” and act on behalf of “vulnerable” groups (such as perverted trans women waving their cocks about in girls’ changing rooms, or Hamas’ ruthless terrorist fighters, who have infiltrated the far left), all that’s left to do is put the pedal to the metal on the flower-bulldozer. Any negative side-effects of the policy must be glossed over and concealed, and anyone who challenges the official narrative must be scrutinised, bullied, ostracised and condemned. Take Document, for example.
Out onto the square in front of the masses, with the placard ‘counter-revolutionary’ around your neck! And it is always the dissidents’ own fault. They could have kept their mouths shut, refrained from breaching public morality and stuck to official truths, such as: Women can have penises. The EU is merely a ‘cooperation’. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Words are violence. Etc. Views and opinions on this matter are harmful. In fact, quite dangerous, evil and, on top of that, racist.
An anti-intellectual elite
The EU elite’s worldview appears binary: absolute truth, or absolute falsehood – and ‘the good guys’ hold the ‘indisputable truths’. Such as the idea that Islam is peace, Hamas is a victim, or climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity. And none of this is true. These are merely opinions and viewpoints, which, moreover, are flimsily substantiated – which is, of course, why they are so terrified of genuine debate.
Since I am a decent and moderate person, I shall give the elite the benefit of the doubt, in accordance with Hanlon’s Razor: If one observes ‘Elite Norway’ from the outside, one sees a collection of utterly trivial mediocrities moving in a herd, without any significant intellectual qualifications or capacity for self-criticism and self-insight. They seem convinced that everything they do is done to protect ‘vulnerable groups’, democracy, the environment, the climate… and the children! Think of the children! Never to protect themselves or their own jobs, power, money and prestige. For further reading, I refer you to my series of articles ‘The political elite and their closed forums’, from 2024.
This elite and the new aristocracy have replaced objective analysis with subjective groupthink and moral self-righteousness – just as many individuals on the ‘woke’ left use tattoos, blue hair, herd mentality and moralising as a substitute for IQ, personality and self-confidence. They fail to understand that they become the problem through their belief that they have found the ‘truth’ and are its custodians – and that this gives them the right to suppress other viewpoints, standpoints and opinions. Often in a mob, with shouting and violence, in collaboration with Islamists. All in the name of creating a ‘better and fairer society’. Pah!
What if it’s true?
Let me say something very dangerous: what if corruption has taken hold in Norway? Because the evidence should have prompted a comprehensive investigation a long time ago. What if there is an EU elite within society working for foreign powers? Because all the evidence points in that direction. What if there are separate actors with shared interests who constitute a ‘deep state’? It certainly seems that way. What if the EU wants to become an empire? We can see what they’re doing, after all. They have forgotten the difference between right and wrong, as I wrote in 2017.
And it doesn’t stop there: what if Islam actually is a dangerous, politically violent monster that creates shambolic societies? Over 50 mismanaged countries provide a solid data set. What if there are more dangerous extremists on the left than on the right? Because that’s what it sounds like. What if climate measures are completely pointless and to no avail? Thirty years of failures are certainly worth thinking about. What if a ‘population replacement’ is taking place? Because that is precisely what all the figures, all the statistics and all the observations show.
Shouldn’t *Document* and other media outlets take an interest in this? Is it acceptable to pretend that the public’s concerns are merely ridiculous and dangerous? Shouldn’t this be discussed openly? If an editorial team claims that there is a threat to society and presents evidence suggesting this is true – shouldn’t other media outlets then take an interest, investigate and shed light on it, rather than dismissing it, hush it up or ridiculing it? And do rumours of such ‘conspiracies’ disappear if they are ignored and ridiculed? How is this compatible with a healthy democracy? Explain and analyse.
Freedom of expression, free debate and democracy work
If you are right, and can substantiate your views, you win the debate. If you are wrong and lack arguments, you lose the debate. It’s as simple as that. That is why it is only human to refrain from taking part in a debate if you are wrong. What is striking here is this: it is not we at Document who are chickening out of debates and have tried to make fools of ourselves. Expose us, then!
Instead, it is the elite, the left, the ‘good guys’ and those in power who refuse to take part in a debate with Document. And why? What are they so afraid of? The public naturally notices this imbalance, for the behaviour is inexplicable: if you really are so absolutely right, and the elite have experts, arguments and research to back up this viewpoint – why, then, are they unwilling to debate an opponent – an opponent they believe is demonstrably wrong? What’s the problem? This cowardice makes no sense and is highly revealing.
“We’re right, but we don’t dare discuss it”
It is also revealing that the new aristocracy in Norway keeps its distance and labels opponents and viewpoints as “far-right», dangerous, conspiratorial, undemocratic, ridiculous or «hate speech» – without stepping up to speak openly. This sort of bullying comes constantly from Islamists, climate activists, the immigration industry, EU supporters, the mainstream media and party politicians: they sling mud at dissidents from a distance, but do not dare to face them in an honest debate – something that was the cornerstone of Charlie Kirk’s work. It’s so cowardly and pathetic, and the left’s solution was to resort to violence.
The left always resorts to violence when they lose the debate. They rejoices at the murder of Charlie Kirk, and would gladly have seen Donald Trump killed. They hate democracy and Israel, and march in droves in support of Hamas’s ideology and cause. They excuse the massive use of violence by the far left, Antifa and sexual violence amongst immigrant groups. And even though the ‘mainstream media’ are occasionally forced to report on it, nobody really takes it to heart. There are no consequences. It is swept under the carpet and forgotten, such as the Bataclan attack. Naturally, people notice the pattern in this.
It is this arrogant cowardice that is causing alternative media to flourish, because most people understand the obvious: it is not alternative viewpoints, perceptions of reality, standpoints, perspectives and opinions that are the problem in our democracy. The problem lies in mass psychosis, groupthink, herd mentality, cultural split, primitive moralising and anti-democratic forces that seek to stifle debate and restrict freedom of expression. Document is the solution.
No, we’re not perfect. We do sometimes get things wrong, but that’s not the point: in any case, you’ll become more informed about other viewpoints, standpoints and perspectives, and can form your own opinion. That is how a free press should function in a democracy. The press should not toe the line or act in unison, for then it becomes worthless.
Support us, become a subscriber – and win a true democracy!
