Norway’s FM Espen Barth Eide was in the studio at Marienlyst at 06.30 to celebrate the victory of Lula and the student movement in Serbia. “The wave of right-wing populism has been repelled,” proclaimed Eide, who was on his way to Hungary to hand over 2.7 billion to Peter Magyar as part of the EEA.
Eide made no mention of the numerous irregularities surrounding the conduct of the election in Brazil. Instead, it seemed as though he was celebrating a home victory.
Norway’s PM Støre can play the nobleman in the face of the vulgar Trump. He does not stoop to the same level. If the press hadn’t taken part in this public shaming, it wouldn’t have worked, but they do. To their advantage.
– “He talks about his opponents as enemies. I don’t. That’s how we differ,” he said.
But if you look at the media, Trump is now being lumped together with Putin. Barth Eide uses the word ‘closeness’ to achieve the same effect: he said on Nyhetsmorgen that Viktor Orbán was close to both Trump and Putin. In doing so, he kills two birds with one stone.
Norwegian journalism has drifted towards an echo chamber that it shares with politicians. They provide each other with talking points and parrot one another. The public believes it must be true because everyone is saying the same thing.
Støre and Eide want to come across as the good guys. For them to shine, others must be vilified: Bibi and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are being lambasted by NTB on the eve of the Israeli election.
NTB quotes a think tank called Ofek, which has listed 230 extreme statements made by Israeli politicians this year alone.
But what is Ofek? It is said that one should draw on a wide range of sources and be critical of them, yet the Norwegian media quote ‘experts’ and think tanks without saying anything about who or what they are.
There may well be a reason for this.
An independent think tank (founded around 2020) focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, two-state solutions and liberal democratic values. It conducts research into politics in the West Bank and collaborates with political decision-makers.
Funding: Grants from, amongst others, the New Israel Fund (a major source of funding), Bread for the World, the Bertha Foundation and the Sigrid Rausing Trust (which distributes funds via the NIF). The organisation’s budget has, in recent financial statements, run into hundreds of thousands of euros.
But what and who is the New Israel Fund? We are talking about big money here.
It is an American non-profit organisation (founded in 1979) that funds and supports progressive and left-wing civil society organisations in Israel. The organisation’s stated aim is to promote liberal democracy, gender equality, human rights, minority rights and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It describes itself as an organisation that strengthens an ‘ecosystem’ of Israeli activists, voluntary organisations and leaders working towards a more just and democratic Israel.
Key facts
-
Legal domicile: Primarily the USA (with significant operations and staff in Israel).
-
Activities: Awarding grants to Israeli NGOs (traditionally several dozen per year), capacity building, research, advocacy and support for groups focusing on the protection of democracy, civil rights, gender equality, resistance to the occupation/settlements and related issues.
-
Scale: Has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars over several decades. Recent annual budgets have been in the tens of millions of dollars (e.g. in the region of 28–55 million dollars in the latest reports, depending on the year and what is included). The donor base has grown, particularly since 2023.
Grok
This is the same NGO sphere within which Norway operates. There is little public discussion about where the money goes. Document has revealed that funds from Norad and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs go to organisations ranging from the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) to the BBC.
This network did not exist originally. It has developed over time and has been instrumentalised to gain political influence, including in foreign countries.
The Norwegian media never write about these NGOs. They are themselves part of the network through, amongst other things, press subsidies.
But this makes it impossible to know who one is dealing with.
Yet they accuse Document of presenting “undocumentable” claims.
The information is just a keystroke away thanks to AI, and there is no longer any excuse for not reporting it.
This network is the same one that enabled Jeffrey Epstein to ensnare Terje Rød-Larsen, Mona Juul, Thorbjørn Jagland and Børge Brende.
Politicians such as Støre do not want this to be exposed. It would upend much of the way power is exercised in today’s world.
