News corporations, controlled by cultural Marxists/multiculturalists, full scale war against cultural conservatism/nationalism.

This involves thousands of examples of character assassinations (everything from a hatchet job on a Bruce Bawer book portraying him as a “foam-around-mouth-racist to ignoring other essential works completely) and other direct attacks and deliberate “media blackouts” regarding Muslim riots (and other issues they do not wish to cover) in Western Europe.

On September 14^th, 2009, a person I am familiar with was contacted by a friend who works for a major Norwegian news agency. He told him about something terrifying and upsetting he had been witness to regarding the coverage of the Gø teborg intifada (Muslim Riots in Gø teborg, Sweden during Ramadan in August/September). According to him, all major news agencies in Norway (in cooperation with the largest Swedish news agency) had made an alliance in order to prevent the truth from getting out, or at least keep the truth from getting out for as long as possible and at least until after the Norwegian elections September 13^th.

His exact words were;

“It is a dangerous road we are walking when the truth is systematically held back and when we are willing to go this far in order to cover up the consequences of the multicultural society. This has been allowed to develop to a degree where it is a democratical problem. “

It is really disturbing how the major news agencies managed to reach a consensus regarding this deliberate cover-up or “media blackout” with the intention of censoring the riots. How was it possible that we would end up with a synchronised media corps which is willing to go this far to hold back the truth from the Norwegian/Swedish people about something so important?

The following log describes how this transpired:

August 21/22^nd – reports are received in major news desks regarding Muslim riots in Gø teborg, Sweden. An article is created in one agency but the chief editor decides not to publish it.

August 22^nd – a manifest of Jihad is posted in Rosengå rd, Sweden, Norwegian media companies are informed about this on the 23^rd. It is clear now to many of the chief editors in the major Norwegian news agencies that this indicates that the rioting will continue and that it is indeed news worthy. However, most of them assume (hope) the riots will end within a week at most.

August 23^rd – Early in the morning, the chief editor in Aftenposten, Hilde Haugsgjerd was contacted by Jan Helin in the major Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet where she is asked to keep a lid on the story and/or at least write as little as possible about the riots. She is told to inform other Norwegian chief editors. It is unknown what else was discussed.

After this phone call with Jan Heling, Hilde Haugsgjerd calls the chief editor in Dagbladet, Anne Aasheim where they agree that this is a story which could significantly benefit the Norwegian Progress Party (FrP, the only anti-immigration party) as it would put immigration/asylum seeker/Islam related discussions on the agenda just before the elections. This must be prevented at all costs. They agree to contact chief editors in all major Norwegian news agencies and hold a teleconference where they discuss this issue later that day (it should be noted that ALL Norwegian news agencies are supporters of multiculturalism with many of its key personnel with political Marxist/pro-multiculturalist background). According to the source, it has been confirmed that the following individuals participated in the teleconference:

Editor of VG Nett: Espen Egil Hansen (on behalf of Bernt Olufsen), Hans-Tore Bjerkaas (editor in NRK), Carsten Bleness (editor in Dagsavisen), Jan Ove Å rsæ ther (editor in TV2), Hilde Haugsgjerd (Aftenposten) and Anne Aasheim (Dagbladet).

According to the source, there was a tense mood among the participants. Espen Egil Hansen and Jan Ove Å rsæ ther suggested to give the story ”some” coverage so that there would be no speculations concerning the fact that Norwegian news agencies had censored the riots if they lasted longer than expected. They drew parallels to the Paris riots and discussed that it could escalate. According to the source, Anne Aasheim raged at Espen Egil Hansen and Jan Over Å rsæ ther and accused them of promoting racism and helping the Progress Party election apparatus (FrP) by wanting to cover the riots.

They all agreed in the end that the most pragmatical approach was to not cover the riots at all and to inform other editors in different news agencies to deliberately ignore it as well.

August 28^th – two murder attempts on Swedish police officers and multiple arsons of cars and buildings results in a situation where the major Swedish news agencies are “forced” to cover the riots to a certain degree. As before, it is decided that the word: “Islam”, “Muslim”, “Jihad” or “intifada” shall not be included in any articles or reports (this is a common consensus among European MSM in general).

An increasing amount of tips (and demands from individuals to cover the events) pours in to the Norwegian news desks but still they all refuse to cover it (only 1-2 weeks until the Norwegian elections).

6-8 September - They manage to maintain censorship until around September 6-8^th. After that, reports are starting to be published on independent blogs and these events are being distributed on the internet. Many individuals on online forums are demanding that the MSM cover the events and they are calling it an outrage and un-democratic behaviour. The pressure increases on the news agencies.

At this point, Hilde Haugsgjerd starts to doubt whether it is too risky to continue the media blackout. She is starting to experience increased pressure from her own staff (Aftenposten used to be a cultural conservative news paper up to 1972, when it was infiltrated by cultural Marxists, and is still regarded as the most conservative of the MSM news agencies). After a few phone calls back and forth among the editors during this time the issue is discussed again and they are evaluating the possibility to end the censorship. However, they all agree to continue with the media blackout.

September 13^th (1 day before the Norwegian election) – Hilde Haugsgjerd makes a call to Anne Aasheim and tells her that she is going to publish a short article about the riots, but that she will make it moderate (scaled down) and will ensure that the article is not highlighted. This decision is made to create a sort of alibi so that conservatives cannot claim that Aftenposten is deliberately plotting against the Norwegian people by participating in non-democratic activities (deliberate media blackouts). At this point there are loud discussion on various forums and blogs about the MSMs “full scale war” against the Progress Party (FrP).

Some of the explanations used to conservatives who have demanded coverage in this period (regarding the Swedish, British, French riots) include:

- NRK: Three different explanations: “Not newsworthy” and “we haven’t heard anything about this” and “the decision to cover this story is under consideration”.

- TV2: “We haven’t heard anything about this”

- Aftenposten: “Our reporter (who was about to cover this) is sick, we will cover it shortly”

September 14^th – Norwegian elections – Progress Party result: 22, 9% (down 6-8 percentage points from earlier polls due to intensive media attacks from a synchronised news corps for eight weeks straight.

September 20^th – NRK, the Norwegian state channel, is now (after 6 weeks!) running a television broadcasted story about the intifada in Gø teborg, Sweden, one week after the election…

Conclusion:

All major news agencies in Norway deliberately conspired (and continue to conspire) against the Norwegian people and sabotaged the 2009 election by initiating media blackouts of essential events (the Muslim intifada in Gø teborg, the Muslim riots in several places in the UK and the Muslim riots in France a couple of months earlier). Not only did they “rob” the the Progress Party of essential coverage which would have guaranteed the party at least 28-30% of the votes (if these events had been given the appropriate coverage and attention). Every single news agency (some of which had been neutral towards the Progress Party in many cases) synchronised a “full scale media/labeling war” (employing primarily scare tactics and various other attacks) against the Progress Party eight weeks before the election. At this time the Progress Party was at 28-30% on multiple polls and I guess the MSM panicked (as the following 8 weeks of synchronised war campaign indicates).

At the end of the day, they, the major news agencies succeeded in sabotaging the election again and ruining the FrP turnout. FrP bled during this media war campaign and lost 6-8 percentage points, ending on 22, 9%.

The almighty Norwegian/Swedish cultural Marxist media corps significantly manipulated the Norwegian election and the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist government (consisting of the Labour Party, Socialist Left Party and Center Party) were allowed to continue their old path of mass-Muslim immigration (colonisation) and Islamisation of Norway.

These types of un-democratic media strategies are not limited to Norway/Sweden but are prevalent in all Western European countries. France is a very good example where media blackouts are increasingly common (even by ministerial instruction).

There is no such thing as a “free press” in Western Europe and there haven’t been since the last cultural conservative (critical of multiculturalism) news agencies where infiltrated during the 1970s. A majority of Western European countries do not have a single cultural conservative news agency left which is contributing to paralyze our democracies by making them dysfunctional. This again contributes to radicalise moderate cultural conservative forces because an increasing number of people feel that we are now living in a repressive totalitarian cultural Marxist/multiculturalist state.

There is no democracy in Western Europe, and Norway and Sweden are two of the world’s most repressive Marxist regimes.