When criticism of Islam becomes Islamophobia

Sometime during the last decade the term Islamophobia managed to sneak its way into mainstream political discourse and since then it has become a highly effective instrument in restricting free speech on matters such as Islam and multiculturalism. It is a tailor-made word designed to inflict maximum emotional impact on a mostly leftwing academia and to help further the cause of the Islamists whose ultimate goal is to subjugate the western world with their undemocratic political system. It is important to keep in mind that the term Islamophobia is an oxymoron whose main purpose is to attain preferential treatment and concessions from those in charge. The term can be invoked in any situation where devout Muslims have a grievance and wish to get the upper hand, and in many cases the mere utterance of the pernicious word is enough to sway the outcome of a dispute, whether it is a perceived one or real one.  The term has supplanted the more archaic and well used word racism which in the last couple of decades has lost much of its emotional clout and ability to suppress criticism due to excessive usage.

The vast majority of western liberal intellectuals these days seem to equate islamophobia with intense hatred of Muslims as individuals who for the most part happens to be non Caucasians and hence worthy of their pity. It would have been a noble gesture if this was true, but unfortunately for them it’s not. What they incorrectly see as hatred towards individuals and which they so easily label islamophobia, is in fact a very rational fear of Islam as a political system whose ultimate goal, according to the Muslims’ own holy book the Koran, is to establish a worldwide Caliphate governed by Islamic principles and Islamic law i.e. to overthrow secular western democracies and to force barbaric Islamic rule upon the indigenous populations.  

The reason why we are faced with this problem is a direct result of the failure of those in power to see Islam in a truthful light. They have failed to recognize that Islam is much more than a religion. In our part of the world religion is seen as a spiritual and very personal relationship between the practitioner and God. This isn’t the case in Islam where faith and devotion is a public matter that involves everybody in society. Everything is built around Islam and a political and judicial system with strict codes of conduct and often barbaric punishment methods are employed. Islam is a governing system whose purpose is to completely control every facet of life, no matter how minor and insignificant. Its ultimate goal as prescribed by Mohammad himself is for Islam to spread to all corners of the world by any means necessary, including brute force.

One could say that the main issue with Islam, and the reason why so many people all over the world resist it is so vehemently is that it demands  that non-Muslims who want nothing to do with it are forced to conform or suffer the consequences, which in many cases means death or a life in serfdom.  Surely this knowledge begs for some important philosophical questions to be asked such as, should political ideologies enjoy special privileges, and if so why?  Is it reasonable that a political ideology should be exempt from criticism and ridicule considering that western politics is all about ridiculing and insulting opposing political parties and candidates?

What people need to realize is that today’s criticism of Islam is first and foremost political based as it focuses solely on the violent actions which are often supported and embraced by Islamic doctrines. Very few people criticize Islam for its spiritual aspects, such as praying five times a day, fasting, believing in Allah and believing that Mohammad is his messenger. The criticism focuses solely on the undemocratic nature of the religion/political system and the fact that so many of its adherents are unwilling to respect other religions, cultural practises and political beliefs. This is what it all boils down to. Unfortunately western liberals fail to grasp this or decide to deliberately ignore this. The criticism is merely opposition to a political ideology that is hostile to traditional western values, nothing more and nothing less.

It is also a paradox that the most devoted supporters of Islam in western academia have never actually bothered to read the Koran or the sunnah. Yet they claim to know more about Islam than those who have studied the religion in great detail. Consequently they fail to see the obvious which should be right in front of their eyes, namely that Islamic doctrines espouse views that are far worse than anything they accuse the so-called islamophobes of. Modern western liberals are stuck in a rut which they seem quite content to be trapped in. Many of them display the very same characteristics that were so prevalent among the academics involved in the nurture vs. nature debate that was raging in Norway a couple of years ago where the sociologists interviewed maintained that pretty much everything in life is determined by environmental factors and completely chose to ignore the genetic aspect of the question.

It seems incredulous that anyone can assess Islam as a religion without acknowledging or taking into account its violent doctrines. How is it possibly to understand the underlying factors that motivate a devout Muslim if one doesn’t understand the religious principles that formed him? One could actually refer to the Koran as the genetic component of Islam. Remove it from the equation all together and one will be unable to come up with any meaningful answers or any valuable explanations as to Islam’s true nature. Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Why should anyone feel compelled to embrace and tolerate a political system that is hostile towards those that fail to show it sufficient respect? Another question is of course whether political ideologies really need constitutional protection? Yes, certain political principles should be enshrined in a constitution, but political agendas or ideologies should not. On the contrary ideologies should always be challenged and questioned. 

It is important that people understand that Islam also applies to them as non Muslims. It’s not just practising Muslims that are made to suffer under Islamic rule, every non Muslim will, according to the Koran be treated as a second class citizen and in worst case scenario be killed and these are principles that are practised today in many areas of the Islamic world. The obvious question that everybody should ask themselves is why we should be forced to respect a system that wants to seriously punish those that fail to respect it. It is highly unlikely that anyone would support a law that would legally compel them to respect a political party and ban them from ridiculing it. Islam is unfortunately such an ideology and it has already been given preferential status in many western nations. It’s imperative that people understand this, and in order to do so it is essential to study the Islamic doctrines and get a proper overall picture of Islam as a religion, political and judicial system, and not to be afraid of what one might discover.

 

The right to bear arms is a no-brainer

I’ve been meaning to write about the right to bear arms for a while now. The issue of weapon legislation has received renewed media attention in Norway following the terrorist attacks in 2011, where the terrorist Anders Behring Breivik gunned down 69 innocent people in cold blood on the island of Utøya. Many people in Norway claim that this terrorist attack is the best argument for further restricting private gun ownership; I would say that this unfortunate incident is the best argument for allowing law abiding citizens to bear arms and to legally be able to use them to defend themselves. There is no denying that Anders Behring Breivik could have been eliminated with relative ease if any of the victims on the island that terrible day had been armed. But even if we for arguments sake accept that Utøya is a valid argument for further restricting private gun ownership, then it should also be accepted that there are thousands of other episodes from Norway that strongly suggest that the right to bear arms is the only logical way to go. Unfortunately in Norway and in many other countries in Europe the subject of private gun ownership has taken on ideological overtones where people who express pro-gun views are branded as morally corrupt and evil.

One thing that I find rather perplexing is the amount of people that seem to equate Americans' constitutional right to bear arms with the right to literally shoot others at will. This is of course ludicrous and it couldn’t be further from the truth. This very typical European way of looking at the issue is misguided and very simplistic and on the border of being downright naive. The right to bear arms is more about the right to defend rather than the right to cause harm. To get a better understanding of the rationale behind the right to bear arms we need to take a look at the issue from a slightly different angle and by doing so it should become evident that this right makes perfect sense.

I maintain that every law abiding human being on this earth have an inalienable right to not be physically harmed by others. This means that no individual have the moral right to indiscriminately or premeditatedly attack or in any other way inflict pain upon an innocent person, and by innocent I mean someone that hasn’t physically hurt others or violated criminal laws that are based on sound democratic doctrines. This is also a principle that is steeped in traditional western philosophy and which is deeply rooted in our psyche. Now, if we accept this assertion then we also have to accept that a person being physically attacked have a legitimate and moral right to defend himself against the aggressor or aggressors.  To arrive at any other conclusion would be logical fallacy as one cannot possibly agree with one and not the other. To dismiss this logical train of thought would be the equivalent of claiming that the earth is both round and flat at the same time, which of course doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

So if we agree that no one has the moral right to physically harm innocent individuals then we also have to concede that innocent individuals have a moral right to resist and fight back when attacked. And if we maintain that people have a moral right to defend themselves then that would invariably mean that we have to make sure that they have the means and possibilities to exercise this right, if not the principle of right to self defence becomes nothing but a hollow shell without any substance. It is therefore difficult to understand the strong moral aversion that some display when debating whether law-abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves with weapons against intruders or assailants attacking them for no apparent reason. I am also amazed that opponents of the right to bear arms find the use of force as a method to prevent an innocent person from becoming a victim of a crime so utterly reprehensible. Does this strong aversion imply that they believe it to be morally preferable to see an innocent victim harmed rather than to have a violent perpetrator neutralized?

Another question worth asking is why is it morally justifiable for a police officer to use force in such a scenario and inexcusable for a private individual? Surely the action of both the police officer and the ordinary citizen will have the same outcome. A bullet from a police officer’s gun will cause the exact same amount of damage as the bullet fired from the gun of an ordinary citizen, and considering that both incidents would have to be reviewed by a judicial panel to determine whether a wrongful death had occurred or not and that appropriate judicial steps would have to be taken to punish the perpetrator if this was the case there simply isn’t any difference at all between these two hypothetical scenarios. Shouldn’t the main focus be on the wellbeing of the potential victim in such circumstances, because surely it’s the criminal who is committing a crime and not the victim? What is worse, attacking someone for no justifiable reason or stopping the person that is carrying out the attack?

Another thing worth noting is that people have the right to feel safe. I would maintain that it’s akin to psychological terror to ignore the legitimate safety concerns of law abiding citizens, especially in crime ridden areas. People have the right to be able to walk down the street without having to fear getting mugged or assaulted. They have the right to go to sleep at night without having to worry about intruders trying to break into their homes and hurt them. Likewise women have the right to move around freely without having to live in a state of constant fear of being raped. Stripping individuals of these rights is the equivalent of mental torture that could over time severely affect their mental health. This is particularly applicable to Norway where crime has skyrocketed over the last few decades and where the police have shown that they are incapable of dealing properly with the problem. And on top of that the police in Norway are unarmed.

One could of course argue that if guns are made more readily available people would start using them more frequently and that this would result in disastrous consequences. Personally I don’t believe that there is much substance to that particular argument. Kitchen knives, axes, baseball bats etc are already easily available and can be purchased without any special permit and these items can quite easily be used to take someone life. But there is no evidence that would tend to suggest that people kill each other at an unprecedented scale simply because they own any of these items. If someone is intent on taking another person’s life then they are going to achieve this regardless of whether they have access to guns or not. It’s simply wrong to claim that guns kill, because they don’t. It is the people holding the guns squeezing the trigger that kill and this is very important to keep in mind.

 It’s also worth noting that the US military has conducted studies that show that most normal people would be incapable of shooting someone that they’ve never met before and who hasn’t done anything wrong to them or their families. The act of killing is a skill which has to be taught and it is something that armies around the world constantly have to strive to instil in their soldiers. To take the life of an innocent person goes against pretty much everything we’ve been taught and giving someone a gun doesn’t change this. A person’s moral compass doesn’t miraculously perform a 180 degree turn the instant a person grabs hold of a gun, nor is a person’s mental boundaries wiped clean as a result of it.

The strongest argument for allowing people to bear arms however is of course the fact that the police are incapable of preventing every single crime. This is a logical and inescapable conclusion that even the most diehard opponents of the right to bear arms accept. Even the most effective police force in the world won’t be able to show up straight away and prevent a crime that’s in progress. There will always be a delay from the time the crime is called in and until the police arrive at the scene and can start actively dealing with it. And in many cases the only thing they can do is to investigate. The sad truth is that we will never be able to completely stamp out crime from our societies. We can give it our best shot, but we will never be a hundred percent successful at it.  Nor will we ever be able to prevent Illegal guns from ending up in the hands of hardened criminals. It doesn’t matter how hard the law enforcement agencies work, we will never get there. Thus there will always be armed criminals threatening to commit and committing violence with guns. In a perfect world there wouldn’t be a need for guns but the world isn’t perfect, never has been and never will be. This is something we need to keep in mind when we debate this issue. It is wrong to take a life, but it isn’t necessarily wrong to take a life if the purpose of doing so is to protect your own life or that of others. Most people with a level-headed view of the world realize this.

So would criminals be more violent if they knew that people had a legal right to fire at them if they engage in certain criminal activities? Maybe it would, but then again it would probably also make them think twice about committing crimes in the first place. If committing certain criminal activities becomes just as risky as a game of Russian roulette the odds are that many criminals would seriously contemplate their career options and decide that it makes more sense to stay on the straight and narrow. Another point is that if governments take away people’s rights to bear arms they’re basically playing into the hands of the criminals. There is nothing that hardened criminals want more than victims that can’t defend themselves and a police force that is stretched beyond capacity and incapable of providing them with any meaningful resistance.

The institution of political asylum needs to be scrapped

Is a nation morally obliged to honour current refugee conventions set out by international organizations such as the UN? When considering the consequences of these policies and the severe repercussions they are having on the affected nations the answer has to be a resounding no. No nation should be made to uphold laws and conventions that severely weaken their ability to uphold an orderly society and subsequently surrenders their national sovereignty. To religiously and uncritically follow the recommendations of unelected international organizations without giving the slightest considerations as to whether the recommendations offered by these are beneficial or not cannot be labelled as sound practice and should therefore be rejected on a moral basis. Before any important decision is made in any matter the consequences should always be weighed up against one another. If the benefits exceed the disadvantages then it stands to reason that the decision is a healthy one and vice versa. Unfortunately this principle is no longer held in high regard in the western world. Today important political decisions are largely dictated by emotions rather than reason unlike a couple decades ago when logic was a much more prevalent feature.

Recommendations and laws should always be subjected to strict scrutiny before they are applied in order to avoid undesirable consequences. The current conventions on refugees have become a straitjacket that has been forced upon the nations of the west and one which they seem unable to extricate themselves from. Even hinting about the validity of the laws is equated to racism and is condemned in the strongest of terms. In Europe, the cradle of democracy, new laws have even been introduced to limit and discourage criticism of such politically correct doctrines. We are now at a stage where swift sanctions will be implemented against those countries that are tempted to violate what has been dictated to them by these unelected and highly undemocratic international organizations. The conventions have successfully removed the right of western nations to stake out their own future and thus the right to decide their own fate which flies in the face of the universal declaration of human rights drafted by the UN in the aftermath of WW2. International treaties have become the almighty deity which the righteous elites worship and which cannot under any circumstances be question. It has almost taken on a religious form.

In the western world the principle of offering a safe haven to those who are persecuted for their political beliefs is a noble one which most rational people would agree with. The practice of bestowing indisputable rights to any person entering the west claiming to be persecuted however is not. The reluctance to take on board this simple fact has resulted in the hijacking of these conventions by economic migrants and the organized criminal gangs that make billions aiding them. The conventions have become the most important cog in the economic redistribution machinery in which poor people from the third world are allowed to resettle in the more affluent west at an enormous financial cost to the host nations and with the overhanging threat of severe sanctions against those countries that don’t comply. The refugee conventions have morphed into a system that rewards those on the lower rungs of the social ladder and not those it was intended to help i.e. the ones fleeing political persecution. It’s a system which grants immense rights to the poor at the expense of the middle and working classes.


There is also a racial aspect to it which is largely ignored, as the laws cater solely to ethnic and religious minorities. It’s a paradox that nations claiming to abhor racial discrimination grant political asylum to individuals from Afghanistan with all the financial benefits this entails on the basis that they are poor, but on the other hand vehemently refuse to extend the same favour to poor people from other western nations. It comes across as a discriminatory policy when considering that the element of political persecution has been completely removed from the equation. The system is in fact so flawed that we have now reached the stage where criminals that commit heinous crimes in their native countries cannot be deported on the basis that it’s a violation of their human rights. Even in those cases where they commit violent crimes in their host nations and constitute a real danger for the indigenous population the laws that dictate these matters are so strict that they cannot be deported. The act of granting political asylum to hardened criminals can never be justified morally, nor can it be justified that the act of evading justice has become a criterion for political asylum. If the aim of the conventions was to prevent criminals from being executed one might as well introduce a scheme in which inmates on death row in the third world were allowed to come to the west in order to prevent such penalties. The policy of harbouring fugitives and enabling them to prey upon the law-abiding can never be justified morally.

The current refugee conventions are flawed because they don’t acknowledge that the interest of the nation states has to take precedent and not the interest of the refugees. No one has the moral right to dictate to other nations how they should govern their countries as long as they don’t engage in genocidal policies or in other ways actively engage in brutal persecution of their own citizens. Just as no human has the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot believe in, or to dictate how they should conduct their lives. If a nation refuses to accept asylum seekers, both genuine and bogus, then that’s for them to decide. One can feel morally appalled about such a decision, but the world community should not have the right to force or use sanctions against those nations until they change their ways. If the world community is upset about grave human rights violation then the world community should rather intervene militarily in the country where the alleged abuses are taking place and not punish innocent countries that play no part in such human rights violations. To force a free and democratic nation to accept ideologically driven policies is just as immoral as the decision to refuse to offer a safe harbour for someone who is politically persecuted.

One could also maintain that it is morally unacceptable for asylum seekers to conceal their true identity from the authorities in their host nations in order to receive political asylum. One could easily describe such activities as immoral and criminal. One could also claim that the act of deliberately misleading the authorities in order to receive benefits one isn’t legally entitled to is fraud. Genuine political refugees are individuals who have taken part in activities which aim to democratize the political system in their native countries. Genuine political refugees don’t travel half way across the globe bypassing several democratic countries in the process based on selfish financial considerations which is the case today. Genuine refugees want to return to their native countries when the opportunity arises, unlike today’s asylum seekers whose overriding goal is to relocate permanently to the west based solely on financial considerations. Nor do genuine refugees import undemocratic principles espoused by the regimes they had to flee from, unlike the majority of today’s bogus asylum seekers which overwhelmingly embrace the norms and values of their native countries.  

It’s also a paradox that western governments support and sponsor highly undemocratic regimes, but at the same time acknowledge that asylum seekers fleeing from these regimes are entitled to our protection. How can a government justify granting political asylum to someone who is fleeing from a regime that they are investing huge resources in propping up as is the case with the Afghan regime? It is not immoral to assert that a society has the moral right to stake out its own political path and decide its own future, nor is it immoral to assert that a government has the right to take extraordinary steps to ensure the safety of its citizens. Any international law or treaty that removes this right is a flawed one. The decision has to be made by the nation itself and none other. One could of course dismiss this argument with the assertion that it would be a violation of current international refugee conventions and leave it at that, but one could also try to delve a little bit deeper into the matter and analyse it in a rational way. Unfortunately it’s political incorrect to talk about the very severe repercussions the policies are having for the host nations in the western world. The willingness to uphold the interest of one’s own nation seems to be a thing of the past. It seems that the lack of a tangible external enemy such as the Soviet Union, which was the case during the cold war, have inhibited the west’s ability to see clearly and reject policies that are detrimental to the stability of our societies. It is important that we challenge the political leadership of the west whenever they try to convince us that their hands are tied in these matters and claim that the final decision rest solely with international organizations such as the UN. The refugee conventions are only convenient tools for left leaning governments to implement their own policies which aim to create multicultural societies in the western world, and that is why they should be rejected. Humans are granted inalienable rights maybe it’s time to grant similar rights to nation states too?

 

 

The undesirable consequences of Norwegian press subsidies

What constitute a democracy and what specific requirements have to be present in order for a political system to be described as such? Numerous books and thesis have been written on the subject in an attempt to define the true meaning of the word. However when dissecting this question and analysing it methodically one soon realizes that the answer to this question is pretty much straight forward and there is no need to write lengthy books and elaborate on the issue in tedious and boring dissertations. The most important criteria that need to be present for a democracy to exist are a free and unrestricted exchange of opinions and ideas. That’s really all there’s to it. For a democracy to exist its citizens must be able to freely and without the fear of being persecuted express their views on issues such as politics, religion and society in general. Remove any one of these conditions from the equation and a society cannot in good faith be classified as a democracy as it invariably engages in some form of suppression of certain views and opinions. The correct way of describing the act of restricting political views is of course censorship, which has been an indispensable tool of every dictatorship that has ever existed on this planet, its main purpose being to silence views and opinions that it find undesirable and which could jeopardize its position.

In the end however the task of ensuring that a society is free and just fall upon the citizens themselves. But at the same time an extra responsibility falls upon the shoulders of the media as they are the only ones that can provide the framework for a system where the exchange of ideas and opinions can occur on a large scale. The media is the sum of everything that takes place in a society and thus it is the purveyor of essential information that the citizens of a free society need to make sound decisions. The information which is presented to the citizens will ultimately determine which political party ends up in government and thus get to execute their ideas and stake out the future course of the nation. Bearing this in mind it’s of the utmost importance that the media is honest and impartial and that it follows these principles religiously. If the media is unwilling to honour these values then the society in which it exists cannot truly be described as a democratic one.  The last time these principles where set aside in Norway were during the Second World War when the German occupying forces carefully controlled the flow of information and banned any news that questioned its authority.

It shouldn’t really be necessary to debate why the restrictions imposed on Norway during the war aren’t preferable or desirable. Most people understand that it is a bad idea to allow the media to become the mouthpiece of the authorities. During the Second World War the German occupying forces and their Norwegian collaborators made no attempts at hiding the fact that they were censoring the news and everyone in Norway knew what was going on.  It can be a little bit trickier to detect when certain basic principles are put aside in what appears to be a seemingly normal and healthy democracy. For a newspaper or a political organization to publicly admit that they are using the media for their own purposes would be disastrous and be akin to political suicide. But just because no one is willing to publicly admit it doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t happen. To allege that the media in Norway are permitting themselves to be used by political forces isn’t as farfetched as it sounds and this is what we are going to take a closer look at in this article.

But before we go there let’s take a closer look at the role of the media and the principles they should try to uphold. As mentioned earlier is it not necessary to write a book about the subject or dissect it in a long and boring thesis. We can simply cut to the chase and narrow it down to two basic and very simple factors.  The media should be unbiased and honest, meaning that it shouldn’t favour any political parties or steer clear of any difficult subjects because of any perceived undesirable consequences it would cause for the political parties involved. It is the role of the media to accurately recount events, to truthfully analyse political news and to shed light on issues that affect the citizens of a society. Personal opinions and political advocacy should be left to bloggers and political organizations, and not be disguised as serious journalism.

There are several factors that will help us to determine whether a newspaper or newsagency is biased or not. One of the most obvious ways of establishing this it is by studying the stories they print. Are they offering both sides of the story or are they focusing unduly on one aspect? Are they favouring certain political factions or are they presenting all political parties in a fair and balanced manner? Another important indicator is the political leanings of the journalists themselves. Are they allowing their own personal opinions to shine through and influence the content of the articles? And more importantly, who is funding the newspaper and what are the political agenda of these financial backers? Because funding does play an important part in deciding the impartiality of the media. Would it be fair to question the integrity of a newspaper if a political organization donated large sum of money to it at the same time as the newspaper was reporting on the political organizations and disguising it as serious journalism? The obvious answer to that question has to be a resounding yes. In a court of law a motion of conflict of interest would be reached if a judge was in position where he was likely to favour one of the pursuant due to financial or personal interests. It all boils down to personal integrity. One of the most important responsibilities of a newspaper is to keep a critical eye on political organizations and decision makers. When the people or organizations that the newspaper is supposed to keep an eye on start paying the wages of the journalists writing about them the lines start to blur.

In Norway representatives from the media and various political parties have on several occasions, and in particular when it comes to the theory of manmade global warming, discredited research on the basis that it is purportedly sponsored by large oil corporations that would benefit from the discrediting of said theory. In taking such a standpoint they are indirectly admitting that funding does have an impact on the impartiality of the one sponsored. And this brings us to the main issue of this article, which is that the Norwegian press subsidies cast a very dark shadow over the impartiality and integrity of the media in Norway.

Each year the media in Norway receives indirect and direct press subsidies to the amount of Nok 6 billion. The biggest chunk goes to NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation) which is the national broadcaster and which up until the mid eighties was the only available TV station for the majority of the population in Norway. The rest of the subsidies go to regional newspapers, many of whom would not be able to survive financially without this additional cash infusion. And what is truly disconcerting is that the media in Norway, with very few exceptions are almost undistinguishable ideologically from one another and by and large share the views espoused by the authorities. The media hardly ever challenge the political establishment in important matters that go against the official line. In Norway both the media and the political establishment are staunch supporters of multiculturalism and hence the media refrain from questioning the establishments’ official policy on this issue. The same thing can be said about manmade climate change, formerly only referred to as global warming, a theory that both the media and the authorities believe passionately in. Keeping that in mind it would not be unreasonable to argue that the media in Norway often mirrors and promotes the ideological views of the authorities who in return heavily subsidizes the same media.

 Is this really a desirable scenario? Wouldn’t it be better for all parties involved if the question of impartiality couldn’t be contested? Wouldn’t it be better if the media refused to accept any financial funding and avoid answering questions about hidden agendas or financial backers with scrupulous intentions? Isn’t it in everybody’s interest to have an independent media without any political ties? From an ethical perspective there is no question that this would be the preferred solution and that maintaining today’s’ practice puts the media and the authorities in a very peculiar light.

How the media subsidies in Norway work

In Norway newspapers receive approximately Nok 2 billion in direct and indirect subsidies each year. Direct subsidies are distributed by the Norwegian media authority which processes applications for direct press subsidies and decides which newspapers are eligible for such funds. The subsidies vary in size from year to year. The newspaper that is currently receives most direct funding from the authorities in Norway is Dagsavisen, which in 2005 received a staggering Nok 41 millions in direct press subsidies. Indirect subsidies refer to the system in which Norwegian newspapers are exempt from having to pay sales tax on newspapers sales. In addition to press subsidies paid out to various newspapers the national TV broadcaster NRK receives approximately Nok 4billion annually in direct subsidies which is financed through a mandatory TV license scheme.

The idea of introducing press subsidies in Norway were first launched in the early 1960’s after several newspaper were forced to close down due to financial difficulties. One of the major media corporations in Norway A-Pressen, which at the time was co-owned by LO (Norway’s biggest Labour Union) and the Labour Party (The Labour Party sold its shares in 1995) proposed the scheme as a way to compensate for dwindling newspaper sales. The scheme was approved and passed in 1969 which was also the first year that press subsidies were distributed.  It should also be noted that A-pressen received 42.1 percent of the overall subsidies the first year and that the traditional conservative newspapers received only a modest 19.5 percent. This was due to the fact that the conservative newspapers were smaller and thus not entitled to the same amount of subsidies as the newspapers owned by A-Pressen. The disparity in subsidies continued to increase in favour of A-pressen in the following years and several of the conservative newspapers eventually had to throw in the towel and allowing A-pressen to greatly enhance its market shares. This would tend to indicate that the press subsidy scheme was instrumental in creating an undue advantage for A-pressen over its conservative counterparts.  

It should also be noted that the press subsidy scheme favours the main rivals of the biggest regional newspapers and that this happens to a very large extent to be newspapers owned by A-pressen. The biggest regional newspapers in Norway only receive indirect subsidies while the number two newspapers receive both direct and indirect subsidies. This is problematic when considering that A-pressen is one of the biggest media corporations in Norway with more than 100 newspapers in its portfolio and that it is a majority shareholder in the national commercial TV station TV2. It is also disconcerting when considering that A-Pressen is strongly affiliated with the Labour Party and that it is a firm supporter of Labour Party policies.

The justification for having press subsidies in Norway is to support smaller newspapers that would otherwise struggle financially and to ensure that there is diversity in the media in Norway. This was the stated intention when the scheme was passed by parliament in 1969. Based on this information one would expect that the media in Norway to be very diverse and that it covers a wide spectrum of opinions and ideas. Unfortunately this isn’t the case. On the contrary there hardly exist any major ideological differences between the newspapers with a few minor exceptions, which clearly go against the stated philosophy of the scheme, which is to increase diversity in the media. As a matter of fact the exact opposite has occurred, namely that the subsidies have favoured newspapers that are closely linked to the ruling Labour Party and those supporting Labour Party policies. This overlapping of public funding and political interests puts the entire industry in a very negative light and leaves it wide open to criticism and it raises the unavoidable question about whether the press subsidies are designed to be exactly what the opponents claim it is, namely a cunning system to booster support for the Labour Party and to promote its policies.

If the sole criterion behind the scheme is to create diversity in the media and give a helping hand to newspapers that otherwise wouldn’t survive then it’s fair to assume that newspapers that qualify for the grants wouldn’t be rejected based on the editorial content of their newspapers. The philosophy behind the scheme is that the more a newspaper diverges from the existing and established the more likely it is to receive funding from the authorities. But unfortunately this isn’t always the case. Both the Christian newspaper ‘Norge I dag’ and the financial newspaper ‘Finansavisen’ have had their application for press subsidies rejected based on their editorial content and format.  The justification given to ‘Norge i Dag’ for the rejection was that the content of the newspaper wasn’t up to standard and that it didn’t cover enough cultural news stories. To be fair it should be pointed out that the newspaper ‘Norge i Dag’ is a weekly newspaper and that slightly different rules apply, but even so the rejection clearly shows that the decision is left to personal whim of the bureaucrats that are tasked with approving press subsidies applications. That a rejection has adverse consequence for those affected and that it leaves them with a disadvantage compared with does that are successful in obtaining subsidies is obvious.

The consequences of press subsidies

One of the consequences of the Norwegian press subsidy scheme is that every single newspaper journalist in Norway is sponsored annually to the sum of Nok 430 000. There are nearly 3 500 journalists working in newspapers (not including magazines and weekly/monthly newspapers) in Norway and the annual total press subsidies amounts to Nok 1.5 billion. On top of this NRK employs approximately 2300 journalists out of a total workforce of roughly 3500, which means that each journalist working for the TV channel is subsidises each year by a staggering Nok 1 140 000. We are indeed talking about astronomical sums of money here just to ensure that journalists in Norway don’t have to worry about losing their jobs. There is no question that the number of journalists in Norway would be considerately lower had it not been for the press subsidy scheme and NRK’s mandatory annual TV licence fee. There would also have been considerately fewer newspapers without the scheme, which takes us to the heart of the matter which is that journalists and newspapers in Norway are dependent on direct funding from the authorities to survive. The labour Party and the Socialist Left (SV) are strong supporter of press subsidies unlike the two main conservative parties FrP (Progress Party) and Høyre (the conservatives), which basically means that it is in a journalist’s best interest to ensure that the Labour Party remains a strong political force in Norway. Political surveys carried out among Norwegian journalists also show that journalists by and large support the Labour Party and SV. Very few journalists support any of the conservative parties. This disparity in political leaning among the journalists could of course be a mere coincidence, but then again it could also be a result of the press subsidy scheme and the media’s dependency on it.

If the original goal of the media subsidies was to encourage diversity in the media then it has definitely failed in accomplishing this. This became especially noticeable in the aftermath of the terror attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011. Despite the blatant incompetence of the various public agencies in the lead up and during the attacks which almost borders on criminality and which can be directly attributed to the policies of the ruling labour Party that has been in government since 2005, not a single newspaper expressed any criticism towards the Labour Party and the prime minister Jens Stoltenberg who theoretically bears the ultimate responsibility for the fiasco and the sorry state of the affected agencies which was supposed to prevent and respond to the attacks.  Even after the official July 22 commission presented its report on what went wrong that day, a report which was basically an unadulterated accusation of the Labour Party and the top echelon of the party, none of the newspapers in Norway called for the dismissal of Jens Stoltenberg or any of his top Government ministers, and one really has to wonder why. Why didn’t one single journalist or one single newspaper raise this issue? There are more than 200 newspapers in Norway and more than 10 000 journalists whose job it is to report and analyse current events in a truthful an honest manner. Why didn’t a single one of them point the finger at the country’s top leadership?

It was equally distressing to see the almost indistinguishable media response in the days and weeks following the attacks in which the Norwegian media targeted conservative bloggers and independent websites, both national and international and indirectly accused them of being ideological contributors to the tragedy. The media’s response almost seemed orchestrated, something which shouldn’t be possible when taking into consideration the sheer number of newspapers and journalists in Norway. Thus it is not unreasonable to speculate about whether this almost uniform response has something to do with the Norwegian media’s financial dependency on the authorities and the way the press subsidy scheme has managed to greatly restrict the diversity in the media to where it is today where it almost appears to speak with one unified voice when it comes to big important ideological issues.  The main problem with this is of course that there is a very real danger that biased reporting will influence and shape the views of the readers. If alternative views and opinions aren’t presented to the readers then how will they ever be able to truly form independent opinions?

If the media deliberately refrain from covering certain issues or covering issues in a biased manner can it really be referred to as journalism? Some believe that the subsidizing of the media can be equated to corruption and they do have a point. No one with a good knowledge of Norway can deny that there exists strong ties between the trade union LO and the Labour Party. LO is one of the main financial contributors to the Labour Party and the labour Party have reciprocated this loyalty several times by awarding special concessions to LO and its members. The trade union owns a large chunk of the newspapers in Norway, as a matter of fact almost half of all the newspapers in Norway are owned by LO through its shares in A-pressen. We also know that it was the Labour Party and the LO that were the driving force behind the press subsidies scheme which they are staunch supporters of to this day. One could be tempted to say that one hand feeds the other something that shouldn’t take place in a supposedly democratic western nation.

Labour Party and public opinion in Norway

Up until the mid 1980’s Norway only had one national TV channel which was and still is one hundred percent publicly funded. Those living near the Swedish border were able to access Swedish state television, but for the great majority of Norwegians NRK was the only alternative. NRK has for many years enjoyed a monopoly on TV and Radio broadcasts and it is no exaggeration to claim that it has been the most influential opinion maker in Norway up through the years and that it has been an important tool for the authorities and it still is to this day. It is the responsibility of the Norwegian government to appoint members to the Broadcasting board which then again appoint the CEO of NRK. It is somewhat of an open secret in Norway that the political leaning of the CEO is more important than qualifications and politicians from all political parties in the country have at some stage  stated that the political leanings of the CEO will influences the presentation of the news. The most vocal proponent of this view was former leader of the FrP (progress party), Carl I Hagen who simpl referred to NRK as ARK (Arbeiderparties rikskringkasting – The Labour Party’s Broadcasting Corporation) as in his opinion the broadcaster blatantly favoured the labour Party and was equally blatant in its hostility towards the FrP and its policies. As a curiosity it’s worth mentioning that NRK up until quite recently has refused to show boxing on TV due to former CEO and Labour Politician, Bjartmar Gjerde’s strong opposition to the sport. This bizarre ban resulted in Norwegian boxing fans being unable to watch highlights from the match between Steffen Tangstad and Michael Spinks for the European heavy weight title in 1986 on NRK, a match by the way which Steffen Tangstad lost.

The Norwegian authorities have always been fiercely protective of NRK’s broadcasting monopoly and this became especially clear in the late 1970’s and early 80’s when they aggressively pursued and closed down independent pirate radio stations operated by idealistic youths who wanted to challenge what they saw as an undemocratic practise. In 1981, in an exceptional show of force twelve police officers raided the apartment of pirate radio activist Rolf Pedersen in Stavanger (City on the west coast of Norway).  Inside the apartment the police found Pedersen and his mom, both of whom were taken to the local police station for questioning. The police also confiscated Pedersen’s transmitter equipment which was the aim of the raid. Pedersen along with several other young activists had on several previous occasions been arrested by the police for disregarding the NRK monopoly. In the end however their perseverance paid off and they were instrumental in breaking up the NRK broadcasting monopoly. And in December 1981 Rolf Pedersen was finally given the first official permit to open up a local radio station in Norway. Looking back it’s hard to understand the reluctance on the authorities’ part to refuse small local radio stations to operate alongside NRK. It’s equally difficult to comprehend how the authorities could justify dispatching 12 police officers to Pedersen’s apartment in order to shut down a tiny pirate radio station. It is also troubling to witness the desperation of the authorities and to see how protective they were of the NRK monopoly. The response of the Norwegian authorities was very similar to that of former eastern bloc dictatorships trying to crack down on political dissidents.

But despite the progress made by small local radio stations which started to pop up all across the country in the following years, NRK still had a monopoly on TV broadcasting and when the first private satellite dishes started to emerge in Norway the police was initially instructed to confiscate the dishes and fine the owners. The justification for going to such drastic steps was exactly the same as the one the authorities used to arrest pirate radio activists, namely that the satellite dishes were in breach of NRK’s TV monopoly. The authorities however finally started to realise that they were fighting a losing battle as the sale of satellite dishes pretty much exploded in the mid 80’s and they eventually caved in and decided to allow private ownership of satellite dishes, and thus the slow erosion of the media hegemony of the Norwegian state continued. 

Again it’s worth asking why the authorities were so reluctant to allow other news broadcasters to tap into the Norwegian market. After all the incentive for the press subsidies was to ensure and facilitate media diversity i.e. to ensure that different opinions and ideas were able to flourish. However looking back it becomes evident that the actions of the authorities have always been in clear violation of these principles. Their actions have always been counterproductive in bringing about media diversity in Norway. The fact that we now enjoy a considerable more diverse media landscape than in the early 80’s is largely due to the actions of private individuals and organizations that have had to endure persecution and harassment from the authorities for having the guts to take them on. Based on this knowledge one really has to ask the question whether the authorities are really interested in having diversity in the media in Norway, and if the true purpose of the Norwegian press subsidy scheme to restrict this diversity.

Another troubling consequence of the lack of distinct political ideology in the media in Norway is that it has become harder to differentiate between the various political parties in Norway. Today there are hardly any ideological differences between the big political parties, excluding the Socialist Left and some very minor fringe parties that have no real political influence. And one has to wonder why the political parties over the last couple of decades have gradually become more alike. Today there are hardly any opposing voices in political circles in Norway when it comes to multiculturalism, social security and climate change. Some very minor differences still exist between the political parties, but not to the extent seen in other nations where true political differences can still be found, which basically means that voters don’t really have any meaningful political alternatives to chose between. There could be several reasons for this dramatic political change, but it’s not unreasonable to speculate that the media have managed to bring about or at least been able to substantially influence this ideological process. Media has a lot of power and they are the most important opinion makers in Norway today. And when they stop or are reluctant to engage in honest and independent journalism and instead starts engaging in ideological based reporting this will with have an effect on the political views of the readers.

A desirable alternative

Most people would agree that diversity in the media in which a wide range of opinions and ideas can be found and debated is an ideal scenario. However, history has shown us, at least when it comes to Norway, that the authorities are ill equipped to bring about such diversity. It has always been private individuals and enterprises that have cleared the path for more diversity in the media in Norway, despite the authorities’ attempts at preventing them from doing so. And the fight to bring about true media diversity in Norway has gained momentum in the last decade and it has managed to put some serious dents in the authorities’ ambition to control the minds of the masses. In today’s digital age with tens of millions of blogs and independent internet based news sites it seems almost impossible for the authorities to control and restrict the free flow of information and ideas. Consumers of news are also gradually changing their habits and are at least in the Scandinavian countries turning to online based independent news sources. And there’s no denying that with the introduction of the internet in Norway people have really started to challenge the media consensus and force the media to cover stories that they wouldn’t otherwise touch. And this is a welcome change; because the more opinions and angles a reader is exposed to the better equipped that reader is to make informed decisions.

Where do we find greater political diversity, in a place like Norway where the media is almost indistinguishable from one another or in a place like the USA where the diversity in the media is diametrically greater and where different opinions and ideas are not suppressed by the authorities? Newspapers do not have to be sheltered and artificially kept alive by the authorities. Normal marketplace mechanisms should decide whether a newspaper has the right to survive or not. A quality newspaper will always be successful and manage to turn a profit. That’s what we should strive for, not to maintain a couple of hundred newspapers that are merely blueprint versions of one another and when true media diversity has been established political diversity will follow and that is as close as we will ever get to an ideal scenario.

Why the rejection of multiculturalism is ethical and just

Besides the obvious arguments against third world mass immigration and multiculturalism, such as that it leads to colonisation, fragmentation, conflicts and the destruction of indigenous ethnic groups there are other more insidious and less transparent factors that make a strong case for the scrapping of this ideology. The most obvious one being that multiculturalism as prescribed by the UN and hence all western nations is classical Marxism in its purest form. It encompasses all the doctrines of hardcore Marxism as espoused by the Bolsheviks in the Communist nirvana of the former Soviet Union. It embraces the Marxists principles of the oppressed masses, the ruthless exploiters and the credo of performing based upon ability and receiving based on needs.

After more than 70 years of Communism in Eastern Europe it shouldn’t really be necessary to point out the obvious, which is that an ideology that has claimed more than 100 million lives should be shunned like the bubonic plague and not embraced which is the case today.  Adopting any tenets of this ideology is morally indefensible. Marxist inspired multiculturalism not only champions principles that are hostile to freedom and individuality, but it also completely rejects the notion of self and dismisses that man posses the ability to rise above and overcome hardship and challenges. It is a tyrannical ideology whose ultimate goal is to enslave people and erase any traits of Individuality. It is thus not only ethical to reject this ideology, but it should be considered a sacred duty.  Opposing it is noble and most certainly not a sign of extremism which the frantic proponents of multiculturalism on the left would like us to believe.


Another strong argument for the abolition of multiculturalism is much more tangible and that is that it’s a system that breeds criminality and erodes the respect for the rule of law. The consequences of its policies have resulted in an astronomical explosion in crime and subsequently an enormous drain on the financial resources of the nations affected with this disease. Multiculturalism is causing the destruction of societies and perversely the resources which are siphoned from the public coffers to uphold it is channelled straight into the pockets of criminal networks that have no respect for human dignity and democratic play. Apart from the illegal immigrants themselves, these organizations are the only ones who truly benefit from multiculturalism as it is they who control the flow of individuals into the west. One could argue that they are the gatekeepers to the west.

 It is no small task to create a multicultural society. There are enormous logistically challenges that has to be overcome. Importing millions of diverse ethnic groups half way around the world is challenging especially when it has to be done surreptitiously in order to dupe the masses into believing that the ever increasing flow of people into their countries have a legitimate reason to be there. This illegal trade have empowered and enriched criminal organizations that make their fortunes by unlawfully transporting immigrants across national borders. It has been claimed that human trafficking is the second most lucrative business in the world after drug trafficking and the reason why it has risen to this position is due to flawed, undemocratic and highly unethical immigration policies implemented in the west. Human trafficking wouldn’t be possible had it not been for the liberal immigration policies which reward those who choose to ignore the law. In all other areas of life it is considered unethical to fund and financially support criminal enterprises, but if the purpose of it is to further advance multiculturalism then it’s okay.

There are no moral reasons why people in the west should have to accept things that are unethical, and there are certainly no moral reasons why they should have to finance such activities with their tax dollars. And we’re not simply talking about human trafficking here. Taxpayers in the west also indirectly have to finance other types of crime, such as drug trafficking, prostitution and numerous other illegal and highly immoral activities which have had a catastrophic effect on western society. Fifty years ago parents didn’t have to worry about their children getting hooked on hard drugs or being the targets of vicious assaults and gang rapes. The advent of drugs such as heroin, crack and methamphetamine which is a by-product of multiculturalism combined with the enormous influx of individuals from backwards nations where the rule of law is nonexistent have drastically changed the social fabric of western societies and transformed many of our major cities into areas which are unfit for raising kids, and unfortunately smaller towns and villages which have become somewhat of a safe haven are next on the list.

Another immoral aspect of multiculturalism is that it has created a new class of people, which by the way has always been the main goal of this ideology, namely the oppressed that are incapable of fending for themselves and thus reliant on welfare and subsequently an enormous drain on our resources. It is worth noting that this aspect of multiculturalism also caters to the Marxist doctrines of receiving according to needs. Multiculturalism has created a new minority that are both ethnically and culturally foreign to the continent and that are ruthlessly being used as a fulcrum to force through cultural and ideological changes that would otherwise have been impossible to achieve. This new minority has been designated the role of the oppressed masses which must be liberated and thus given preferential treatment. It has laid the foundation for conflicts and violence as per classical Marxist doctrines which stipulate that the oppressed are entitled to, or more correctly, obliged to rebel. It is blueprint for societal upheaval and violent societal change.

The world has never seen any ideologies or belief systems which are more anti-freedom, anti-individualism and violent than Communism and the ideology that it uses to achieve its goals, Islam. Combined they have more blood on their hands than any other ideology in the world. Their doctrines violate the most fundamental human rights that were incorporated in the universal declaration of Human Rights, back in the day when the UN was still a functioning and relatively honest organization. These two ideologies need to be confronted and not pampered with which is the case at the moment. Modern Marxism and Islam are in cahoots and their aim is to mentally and physically erase any trace of the enlightened and free world and replace it with un-freedom and subjugation.

In free societies it is the task of its citizens to decide how they chose to live their lives.  It is not the responsibility of a tiny powerful minority to force collectivism or any other undemocratic belief system upon them. What we have today is a Marxist imposed multiculturalism. Instead of the bloody and violent ways of Marxism in the past this new version of Marxism is controlled by means of cultural relativism.  Forced consensus and lack of opposition is part and parcel of classical Marxism which today is encapsulated in modern day political correctness. Everything today must be measured up against this paradigm and subsequently be rejected or embraced, and it is the Marxists proponents of multiculturalism that gets to decide what is and what isn’t political correct. A tiny and powerful and for the moist part unelected minority get to dictate policies that have monumental consequences for the indigenous populations of the west. This is wrong and it cannot be accepted.

Opposing third world mass immigration and multiculturalism is therefore ethical and just, which undeniably means that supporting mass immigration and multiculturalism are unethical and unjust.  Multiculturalism is simply another word for Marxism and everything that it espouses must be rejected. It is an evil and undemocratic ideology that abhors personal freedom and individuality. It is an evil doctrine which has already managed to greatly curtail freedom of speech and criminalize certain aspects of traditional mainstream conservatism. It is essential that the true face of multiculturalism is exposed and presented in a truthful light. If we fail to do so we will most definitely lose the fight against this sinister ideology and we simply can’t allow ourselves to do that.

Some thoughts on the Breivik verdict

Also published at Gates of Vienna

 

Anders Behring Breivik has been found to be criminally sane by the court in Oslo, which means that he is going to serve his sentence in a prison as opposed to a closed ward in a psychiatric hospital. Not that it really matters that much in the big scheme of things; he would have been transported back to his isolated custom-designed hypermodern state-of-the-art wing at Ila prison regardless of whether he was found insane or not.

The fact that Breivik will spend the rest of his life in relative cushy surroundings paid for by the Norwegian taxpayers bothers me, but there are other aspects about this depressing case that bother me even more, such as the signals the Norwegian authorities are sending out to the rest of the world. They are basically telling the terrorists of the world to head for Norway and engage in bloody carnage. And if the terrorists take them up on their offer, the effeminate Norwegian authorities will not mistreat them, and under no circumstances will they dream about violating their ‘sacred’ human rights.

Nor will the terrorists have to worry about failing their missions, as the Norwegian police and intelligence agencies are blatantly incompetent and will never be able to foil any terrorist attacks. An added bonus is that under no circumstances will these agencies execute their job properly — which would be to, under exceptional circumstances, risk their lives in order to save innocent people from being slaughtered in front of their very eyes. In such scenarios they will begin debating among themselves what the proper legal response is and then await confirmation from their superiors before they act.

The Norwegian authorities will even supply the terrorists with a platform from which they can disseminate their hateful rhetoric and propaganda while they smirk and revel in their own cleverness and the stupidity of the ‘Norgies’.

Because who’s to say that Al Qaeda or some other parasitic terrorist organization won’t take them up on their offer? Pretty much anywhere else, such parasites would get a bullet in the head upon capture.

One social commentator, Hanne Nabintu Herland, dared to challenge the enforced state sanctioned consensus and suggested what any person of a sound mind was already thinking, namely that the police upon learning about the massacre at Utøya should have quickly scrambled a helicopter and sent a sniper to Utøya to kill Breivik to prevent him fulfilling his mission. For this she was vilified by the political correct morons who decide what ‘proper political’ discourse in Norway is and what isn’t. Their response was to rebuke her for daring to suggest such a thing; didn’t she know that even an individual like Breivik has rights?

It’s hard to come up with an appropriate response to such absolute nonsense, but then again if people are that far gone ideologically, common sense and logic will never be able to permeate their indoctrinated leftists’ brains. They will never be able to see the irrationality of their arguments.

Earlier today I watch a story on the news about Mark Chapman, the guy who assassinated John Lennon in NYC in 1980. Evidently Mr. Chapman was denied parole yet again. I think this was his seventh parole request. The parole board’s refusal to grant him his wish was based on what they perceived to be the sanctity of human life and Mr. Chapman’s blatant disregard for it when he chose to aim his gun at John Lennon and squeeze the trigger. Chapman has spent almost 32 years behind bars for killing one person. Breivik killed 77 plus he blew up a governmental building in downtown Oslo and was only handed a 21-year sentence by the Norwegian courts.

These very two different ways of reacting speak volumes for how human life is valued in the US versus Norway. In Norway human life is cheap. The murderer gets the silk glove treatment and the family and friends of the victims gets the fist in the face treatment. In the US the killer gets the punch in the face and not the next of kin of the victims.

Breivik was handed the ‘strictest’ sentence available to the courts in Norway, which is 21 years. But even so it is highly unlikely that the psychopathic monster will ever be able to enjoy life as a free man again. The forvaringsdom gives the prison management the opportunity to keep him locked up indefinitely if they should arrive at the conclusion in 2033 that he still constitutes a threat to society, and I am 99.9 percent sure that this is the conclusion they will arrive at.

If my daughter had been on Utøya that horrible day and fallen victim to the madman, I would have made it my life’s task to extinguish every bit of life in Anders Behring Breivik, and I wouldn’t really care how long this endeavour might have taken me or what the consequences were.

I would also have publicly demanded that the authorities execute the monster upon sentencing. But in Norway you’re not allowed to express such views, and if you do you’re ostracized from the ‘sanctimonious flock’. My hope is that maybe one day in the future Norwegians will find the courage to break free from the shackles of the current totalitarian climate and speak their minds. I also hope that in the future things will change politically in Norway and that we can rid ourselves of the disease of politically correctness and multiculturalism, but I fear that it will never happen, at least not until it is too late.

The political situation in Norway really upsets me. The only good thing that this sorry case has done for my country is to produce the July 22 report, which has highlight the numerous flaws that exist in Norwegian society — not that I think we are going to see any changes as a result of it.

European misfortune or orchestrated chaos?

Change seldom occurs by accident. More often than not there are tangible clues and signs which will give an indication of what lie ahead. In the world of politics, special advisors are tasked with foreseeing developments and anticipating consequences of polices and strategies made by politicians. These advisors are, at least in theory, better suited to gaze into the future and predict potential outcomes. It is their job to give feedback regarding the sustainability and likely results of these policies. This type of analysis takes place in most political organizations, and it certainly occurs within the EU, which is worth keeping in mind when trying to make sense of the seemingly unending string of failed strategies made by the organization in recent decades, and it is very important to remember when trying to decipher the unwillingness of the EU to correct its mistakes and re-adjust its political course.

If we accept that policies and political strategies made by the EU are well thought through and that they have been subjected to proper scrutiny within the organization, it is difficult to see that the current economic crisis in Europe has caught the top echelon of the organization by surprise. There are hundreds of political advisors employed by the EU who are tasked with giving advice and raise attention to potential problems that may arise as a result of flawed policies and it highly improbable that every single one of these advisors failed to foresee the political mess that has now befallen the continent. It’s also hard to accept that these experts got it so completely wrong when so many ordinary people all across Europe for years have been warning about the possibility of just such a scenario, which raises the question whether these advisors perhaps have understood all along how things would play out and that maybe everything has progressed according to plan, i.e. according to the wishes of those who pull the strings in the EU.

Even before the introduction of the Euro in 2002, there were many who warned about the possibility of a future economic collapse if the new currency ever were to see the light of day. Many also pointed out the dangers of tying strong economies such as the German one up against weaker economies in southern Europe, but unfortunately these warnings fell on deaf ears. The leadership of the EU went ahead and launched the new currency unperturbed by the dire predictions of its critics. The German mark which was one of the most stable currencies in the world was replaced with the Euro which drastically weakened the German economy by making it more susceptible to unwanted market fluctuations as the mechanisms of controlling the economy was taken out of the hands of the German authorities and left at the mercy of weaker economies within the union. Today we are able to see the folly of this move and we now know that those who criticised the tighter economic integration were right. It is obvious that the leadership of the EU were made aware of the risks involved with introducing the Euro and that risk assessments undertaken by the organization itself must have predicted such an outcome.

It is also hard to accept that the EU was oblivious to the financial acrobatics of the Greek authorities. And even if we accept that some within the hierarchy of the EU were kept in the dark, it’s ludicrous to suggest that all of them failed to see the potential catastrophic consequences that the Greek fiscal mismanagement would have for the rest of the EU. The truth is that the EU knowingly and fully aware of the dire consequences allowed Greece to run a ponzi scheme which has resulted in the collapse of the Greek economy and sent shock waves through the world financial markets. And Greece is by no means the only member country running such a ponzi scheme. Spain, Ireland, Italy and Portugal have also been exhibiting appalling fiscal responsibility almost on par with Greece. It is hard to comprehend that the EU was unaware of this, and it’s equally hard to understand why the organization failed to intervene. The fact that the EU decided to sit back and watch as the mega disaster gained momentum puts the organization in a very peculiar light indeed. One could of course argue that the financial grief that is currently plaguing Europe was caused by the collapse of the American real estate market which sent the world into a recession.  And this is partially true, but it is not the full story. The financial calamity in the US has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that many EU nations have been living beyond their means for decades. The bank collapses in the USA was triggered by the collapse of the domestic US real estate market which in essence was an American ponzi scheme, not all that different to the one the Greeks were allowed to operate for so many years and which the EU should have been able to protect itself against. There were certainly no lack of alarms being raised by economists and financial experts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean in the lead up to this disaster.

So if we accept that the leadership of the EU knew about the unsustainability of the financial markets, and if we accept that they were more than capable of foreseeing the devastating results it would have on its members why didn’t they do anything about it? One possibility is that the current economic situation suits the EU just fine, and that it in fact is a prerequisite for implementing sweeping new changes which will propel the organization onto the next level and make it even stronger and more powerful. Since its inception the leadership of the EU has taken great steps to amass as much power as possible and over the years it has bequeathed itself ever wider and broader mandates and it is not unfair to suggest that it is in the process of transforming itself into a European version of the United States of America. But there is still a long way to go and it should be clear to everyone that the organization has now reached the critical stage where it can no longer charge ahead by means of normal democratic processes. The only way forward now is by using undemocratic means, which it has already shown that it is willing to do, as was clearly demonstrated in the Lisbon treaty travesty.

It’s not an impossibility that the EU’s next step is to try and force through new reforms and changes by giving itself dictatorial powers through calculated campaigns of temporary orchestrated financial chaos. Nor is it unthinkable that the organization will attempt to exploit the current financial mess in order to take another step towards creating a European super state. There have already been talks about establishing special EU committees which will have the power to control and reject national budgets of member states in order to resolve the current crisis and avert future ones. It is very doubtful that the EU would get away with such devious schemes under normal circumstances. And when we realize this it’s not that farfetched to theorize that the EU has helped facilitate the economic crisis and that it has played an active role in undermining the Greek economy, which of course can easily be repaired if the EU gets to control the national budgets of its member states. If we accept that one way of accumulating power and extending its mandate is by exploiting exceptional circumstances such as financial crises and conflicts, or the possibility of conflicts, it’s not unrealistic to suspect that the EU would be capable of taking advantage of skirmishes and unrest on its external borders as a way of boosting its own influence. And let’s not forget that such a scenario occurring within its borders would present the organization with a very compelling argument to introduce special legislation and possibly even get away with issuing marshal laws.

What constitutes external threats? Well the establishment of Islamic states run in accordance with Islamic Sharia law on Europe’s doorsteps is one example, which is eerie considering that the EU has helped pave the way for such regimes in North Africa through its involvement in overthrowing colonel Ghadaffi in Libya and former President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. The new Egyptian president, Mohammad Mursi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood which is a radical Islamist political movement whose stated goal is to achieve world domination for Islam. The EU is also playing an active role in ousting the Assad regime in Syria which would pave the way for yet another Islamic state just beyond its borders. The possibility of having neighbours which could end up as miniature versions of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a scary scenario indeed and this could easily prompt the EU to implement new draconic laws.

Regardless one has to ask how the EU is able to justify its role in actively supporting hardcore Islamist in overthrowing secular regimes with a favourable attitude towards western interest. As it stands now the actions of the EU only gives rise to the thesis that the EU has assisted Islamists in order to increase its own influence in Europe.

Another scary scenario is civil unrest in the EU itself. Skirmishes in one or several EU member states could see the EU introduce new legislation and give itself dictatorial powers as a pretext to quell any assumed uprising or unrest. After WW2, if we look past the cold war and the civil war in FRY, Europe has been a very stable and safe continent which is mainly due to its homogenous populations and shared moral values. This is something that the EU has been working hard to undermine through the implementation of very liberal immigration and asylum laws which all member states are legally bound to follow. In fact this mission has been one of EU’s primary and most important goals and it has really picked up pace after the introduction of the Schengen treaty which saw the dismantling of national border checkpoints. Today it is possible to travel all the way from Greece in the south to the Scandinavian nations in the north without having to produce a passport or an ID card, which has significantly eased the free movement of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in Europe. The treaty has been instrumental in fast tracking the multicultural European project which the EU has worked diligently to achieve. It is fair to assume that the leadership of the EU was made aware that this would happen when they introduced the treaty, and it has certainly laid the foundation for a divided continent in which serious ethnic conflicts has become a very real possibility. It has of course also presented the EU with an excuse to introduce new draconic laws in the event of ethnic motivated civil unrest.

When we take a look at all the facts and look at them in a truthful manner it’s not unreasonable to ask the question whether the EU is actively facilitating and exploiting volatile incidents both outside and inside its borders in order to drastically transform Europe. The changes that have occurred in the last decades suggest that this is the ultimate goal of the leadership of the organization. We have seen the introduction of the single currency, the introduction of the EU army, the introduction of the EU constitution and the introduction of an EU president. It is highly unlikely that the EU will succeed in moving forward, i.e. to integrate the continent even further by abolishing national parliaments, national armies, national languages etc. without taking on a more tyrannical form, and one way of achieving this is by using the strategy of conquer and divide.

When we examine the pieces of the massive puzzle that is the EU, the theory which is presented here is not all that farfetched. There could be some elements of truth to it, it could be dead on the money or it could be completely rubbish, but it is definitely not a theory taken out of thin air.  Whatever the truth, it is an undeniable fact that undemocratic nations are on the rise. In Asia, China is emerging as a new super power with imperialistic aspirations to match. Russia is another example and it shares a border with Europe. So does the Islamic world and it is not unrealistic that we will see the creation of radical Islamic empires in North Africa which will represent a serious threat to the national security of the EU nations. And there are no guarantees that the leadership of the EU intend for its member nations to remain democratic entities within the organization in the years to come. It’s not all that unrealistic to suspect that the EU will morph into a totalitarian European empire with an even more autocratic leadership in order to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay in the future. One thing that should be obvious to all is that the leadership of the EU are in many instances acting like little dictators.