L’Oreal Not Realising What They Are Part Of, Childless Feminists & The Election In Norway.


Several interesting articles have been published as of late regarding the current parliamentary election in Norway. I hope that my fellow Norwegians keep an eye on things, or maybe an election isn’t about current events but about unwavering ideology. It can certainly explain the bottomless hatred from a certain political side….

Norway has been over-taxed for years! Norwegians have been duped for way too long! I hope that the bureaucracy can be reduced so that Norwegians will experience more freedom, especially when it comes to using their own money!

It is not appealing to move back when looking at the general cost of living. When the weather is so brutal you would think that Norwegians would do anything to attract people. Shitty weather, high taxes, expensive products and services not to forget poor offers when it comes to public services makes Norway un-appealing when comparing the country to other European nations with milder weather, cheaper food of better quality and a cost of living that is way friendlier. What Norwegians should think of is this: How can we make our country attractive to our fellow country men who live abroad so that they would be interested in moving back?

Turning Norway into a tax-haven for example would instantly make it more competitive as Norway will always lose out when it comes to the weather. Improving the food industry and local produce could also be an idea, in fact there are many reforms that could benefit Norway.

Yet I think that many will focus on the current cultural turbulence in Europe. This is understandable but also saddening as many will support taking in more and more and more migrants as a giant virtue signalling exercise, from the politicians championing this there is something way more sinister lurking in the background. Their own hunger for power and their own loathing of European culture.

Europe is messy at the moment culturally speaking and the best thing that nations can do is to protect themselves from all of their neighbours who are becoming security risks due to their idealism backfiring big-time and sorting out any internal problems so that it will be understood far and wide that European nations will not support or harbour Jihadis. That European nations believe in themselves and their heritage.

Whether Norwegians pick idealism or realism remains to be seen…

Muslims love the Norwegian labour party, as they want more Muslims in Norway.

Our immigration minister was harassed when visiting an area of Oslo.

The labour party are angry that our immigration minister travelled to Sweden to see how they have failed with their immigration project. I wonder why?

This is a great post from Norwegian Politician Siv Jensen criticising the labour party’s tax plan, as they are planning to increase the fortune-tax, this will affect those who just happen to live in a house of a certain value etc; without any respect for that person’s actual income level. A nasty business in other words.

This is a very surprising article about female celebrities without children. What really caught my attention is that a lot of these women are liberals, in fact very outspoken liberals. When I think about how women with traditional families are ridiculed I’m starting to believe that this is subconscious envy. I cannot really think of another reason as to why women’s most natural role is being held up as an embarrassing and nasty example. The more abortions you have, the more partners, the more you focus on your career, the better you are. Feminists are telling young women that it doesn’t really matter how you look like, I bet a lot of men would probably disagree. Feminists tells you that you are empowered and that you should walk around piss drunk, wearing whatever you want. Feminists want to fundamentally change men, rather than teaching women how to defend themselves and brothers and fathers to protect the safety of their women. More alarmingly I’ve been told that feminists have just succeeded in making men more aggressive towards women as the natural restraint when it comes to aggression towards women is being lowered when men start seeing women as their equals….

Just as it is curious to note that many of our European leaders don’t have children, it is equally curious to notice childless outspoken female celebrities who are lefties. They are not invested in our future themselves but are very much supportive of mass-migration. They are obviously not thinking about what sort of nation they leave behind for the next generation of whites in particular. I don’t have any kids either, but I live with my immediate family and we are many by modern western standards. I look at my siblings and I look at myself and I know that Europe will be left to us in a sorry state, I also know that we will have no other choice but to defend what is ours. I look at those who are elderly now and think about what kind of world they are leaving behind and think of myself as an old frail woman in the future surrounded by alien tribes who want me gone. I see Europe dying in slow motion and envision myself experiencing the last nails being hammered into the coffin of western civilisation. People who are ignorant of true multiculturalism will not understand, they will never understand. These people are so far into their ideology that they will never understand that they have done something wrong. Never. Female celebrities without children.

Maybe women who fail at being feminine and typically female, become full of aggression since they subconsciously register an internal failure? That is a controversial, but interesting question. It could explain why feminists are at war with beauty standards and motherhood. Thinking about how we all have pretty basic instincts it could explain a hell of a lot, another explanation can also be the lack of a good mother-figure or a desire to normalise one’s own preferences so as to not feel so alone or weird. A last proposed explanation from me is: resentment against nature due to being born a female rather than a male.

Speaking of which … yesterday I saw a viral story on Facebook about L’Oreal making history since they cast a transgender model for one of their campaigns. This woman was swiftly fired when it was discovered that she had fired her missiles at white people’s racism after Charlottesville on social media:

“Honestly I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people. Because most of ya’ll don’t even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of color. Your entire existence is drenched in racism. From micro-aggression to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this s—. Come see me when you realise that racism isn’t learned, it’s inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege. Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth… then we can talk.”

What I find interesting about the behaviour of the beauty brand is the fact that many will see them as complicit in championing the “New-Europe.” They are aligning themselves with the exact same ideology that Bergdorf champions. They provide the imagery, the confirmation and promotion of our transformed continent and market their products for a European territory emphasising whites as a minority in their own country. It therefore seems rather peculiar that they should be so surprised by Bergdorf’s online statements.

L’Oreal is just one of many brands advertising and normalizing our new society. In theory they should be featuring a majority of English people in an advertisement meant for the English market, yet they did not, as I’ve seen their ad. Was the hiring and firing of Bergdorf a calculated move by them to create buzz or were they genuinely surprised?

If they were genuinely surprised I’m actually saddened, as this displays a business world completely out of touch with reality, ignorant of what they are actually normalizing, promoting and aligning themselves with. Ignorant of the fact that they are celebrating the slow destruction of  Europe, ignorant of the fact that they are actually championing racism. 

I don’t think that Bergdorf should have been fired. The fact that she is transgender and expresses the opinions that she expresses makes her a perfect representative of our post-modern west. Even though she might have good intentions with the Facebook post she posted as a response to the controversy, she is completely off with her statements.


White privilege makes sense in a western territory as this is our continent for Christ sake! If you don’t have English privilege in England you will lose England – only friends of England should be allowed to live here if they are foreigners, preferably other Europeans who are more like the English so that there won’t be too much of a culture-clash –  only those championing English culture in England should live here. If Swedish privilege ceases then that’s the end of Sweden as we know it.  The reason as to why you see brands changing their marketing is because of this unprecedented influx of people from Africa and the Middle East!!!!!! Hello????? Anybody home? No.

She is out of touch completely and totally as she claims that England’s power and success is the direct result of abuse and slavery, when the fact is that these horrible Englishmen discovered territories without the intellectual help of Africans, invented machinery without the interference of inventive Africans and Bergdorf completely fails when she doesn’t mention the Arabic slave trade and African tribalism. Other empires don’t exist in the white-people-sucks narrative, because reality would debunk the hater’s much-needed myth. And they sorely need it.

You cannot step away from these lies whitout stating that the Muslims were up to no good, that the tribes of Africa were up to no good, that Native Americans were up to no good, that Asians were up to no good, that animals are up to no good, that nature is inherently brutal, and that the evil-white-male won because he was better at fighting and outsmarting his enemies – who were bush-men or unequipped with “prehistoric” weapons and technology. Not to forget the enemy within – those who sold out other tribes only to be stabbed in the back by their invaders later. A lesson to be learnt when you look at Europe today.

England kicked ass and for this they will always be hated. It sucks to lose, the world is filled with sore losers and just like it sucked for others to lose to England it will suck for us to lose to Arabs, Africans, or Asians. You do not want your nation or people to lose, you do not want this, YOU DO NOT WANT THIS; which is why modern leftism is cancerous. It promotes being a loser as something good, that making yourself as a nation weak makes you morally superior, this matters little if you are beaten to pulp by those who don’t give a damn about your politically-correct virtue signalling.


When looking at the glory of the west you look upon a truly fascinating race, occupying a tiny territory but literally ruling the world more or less like no other. When you look at China you see a nation that could have conquered, but ironically enough couldn’t be bothered! The Mongols stopped their imperialism because of their own customs, when their leader died, they had to go back in order to elect a new one. People can wonder how the world would have looked like if the Chinese or the Mongols had truly unleashed their power A 100%. Yet they did not. Europeans have a history filled with victories and technological breakthroughs, we are supposed to be ashamed of this as our inventions, art, music, literature, buildings and military successes make other tribes feel like losers, which is sad for them, because of this you see Sub-Saharan Africans for example trying to culturally appropriate the Egyptian culture or Jesus for that matter, even Giulio Cesare.

It sucks for a great amount of people to be reminded of the best of Europe which is why we have to be guilt-tripped big time, all of the time, constantly, so as to weaken the European spirit, in fact decimate it in order to turn Europeans so self-hating that we destroy ourselves. Bergdorf is a perfect example of the modern-left. Don’t worry nature can apparently be un-learnt as there is only one thing: social constructs. White people are evil, they always are, hey we invented terrorism … hmmm….I wonder how humanity as a whole has survived for all of these years? Yeah I bet it has everything to do with our ancestors being a construct of peace … Nobody who has EVER lived in the countryside, nobody who has ever owned and observed several pets will ever buy into the ridiculous myth that the state of nature is peaceful, nobody who has ever experienced real diversity will think of it as peaceful either, Bergdorf is in a tricky position as a minority. If she wants to fit in she could marry an English woman and father a mixed English child, raising this child to become as English as possible and then see his offspring married off to an English person. This is how you integrate. You become part of the fabric of that society, if not you will eventually have to leave when finding a partner and having kids. Where will the kids be raised? Which society should they be part of? You can of course choose to be a modern-nomad, but guess what? Those who travel an awful lot apparently become even more tribal and nationalistic funny enough.

People like Bergdorf are at war with nature, they hate it and refuse to resign to it so they want to transform it. The only way that they can do this is by genetically manipulating humans so that we cease to be humans. L’Oreal have seemingly no idea that they are firing up under hate and that self-hate is their brand and their core value as of today. Much like eBay’s commercial that I also saw today. They could might as well adapt a new slogan that says: L’Oreal – because you deserve to be replaced if you are white – death to Europe.

comments on youtube

The Triumph Of Reason.


The other night I fell asleep while reading about an astonishing “scandal” breaking the internet, about a fired google employee who was sacked due to a “controversial” memo going viral.

The document in question is named: Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber and offers a reasonable explanation as to why politically correct sensitivity and diversity training isn’t helping the company but rather creates discrimination. The document also explains how biological differences between the sexes can explain why there is a lack of females in tech and in leadership roles.

This is written by a man who labels himself as a classical liberal, which is refreshing to see as the only individuals adhering to science and reason in this day and age are those on the right who are referred to as extremists by those on the left.

Nothing of what Damore wrote about women in his memo is controversial, quite on the contrary. It is basic knowledge that any basic book about the brain will address. The Chimp Paradox.

In fact he could have gone further by writing about the well documented biological differences between races (and ethnicities within races). Which he did not do. Diversity – Why It Is A Complex Issue.

Of course he tried to be sensible by suggesting solutions to the gender gap and was almost apologetic in his writing style as he was obviously afraid of having his memo deemed null and void due to the common tactic of accusing a free-thinking individual of being either a misogynist or a racist. Poor Damore … he should have read this: When People Can Not Process What They Are Reading.

To claim that the modern left are ideological fanatics would be a gross understatement. I’m just waiting for people to resurrect the belief that the earth is flat. Science is only championed as long as it aligns with political correctness, if it doesn’t it has to be suppressed.

The other day I released a blog entry titled: Trump’s Haters. In this entry you can clearly see the coordinated assault on the president of the United States by a media unified in their ideology. Whether it is a music magazine, a men’s magazine or a women’s magazine. These type of publications are meant to entertain, providing people with the latest fashions, advice, celebrity interviews, reviews of products – simply put entertainment; yet they all go way out of their intended spheres by using their platforms as tools of propaganda.

The world of social media is no different. During Barack Obama’s presidency there were many who claimed that conservative Facebook groups were shut down in America. We don’t have to look any further than Germany where citizens have gotten into trouble due to their “anti-migration” statements online. Right-wing bloggers have recently had their PayPal and Patreon accounts suspended and the latest revelations from Google adds to the impression of a left-wing totalitarian reality where reason, history and questioning is mercilessly crushed all in the name of ideology.

An ideology that doesn’t seek the truth in all things, as truth and facts would be its undoing.

This is why we need to repeat a limited selection of slogans over and over and over without ever really questioning what any of these modern values stand for – because if we do – we might realise that we’ve been duped.

The reason as to why I named this entry The Triumph Of Reason is due to James Damore’s incredible bravery in pursuing truth rather than convenient fiction. Yes he got fired and yes that wasn’t right, but he dared to challenge the current orthodoxy and that in and of itself is noteworthy in our current ideological dictatorship where only one perspective and only one voice reigns supreme largely unchallenged – or at least that was the case  until Donald Trump won the presidential election in the U.S.A.

On the left we find a cult of absolute hatred. A group of people so disenchanted with their nation’s history and the sacrifices and labours of their ancestors, that they willingly cast it all aside in the blind belief that this will somehow redeem them from the sins of their fathers. The West was evil because the West won. The West was evil because it conquered. Warfare can only be forgiven if it is egalitarian in nature. Rather than looking at our history in awe they look at it in embarrassment and seem to believe that only a total replacement of European ethnic groups can relieve them of any guilt; and the same sentiment can be seen over in America. Especially on their college campuses.

Progressives believe that history moves towards a Utopia, that the human race naturally gravitates towards a global nirvana. This is why Donald Trump’s victory was so very traumatising and why his administration causes modern liberals to cry, as any classical liberal, conservative or traditionalist is a roadblock in our progressive destiny. It is a step back into darkness.

And this is precisely why those on the left consider those on the right to be the enemy and why they throw a hissy fit whenever questioned or opposed.

You are mean. You are bad for simply asking questions or playing “the devil’s advocate.” There ought to be no such thing, only blind devotion to “the cause.”

Needless to say; there is no space for those who are in the center. Regardless of how reasonable you might think it is to be an open-minded moderate: Opinions….

Like St. George James Damore slayed the dragon or at least bruised it; more people need to come forth and speak up against the current transformation in the west, as individuals like Damore face a future where they’ll be forced to drink from a chalice of poison rather than simply losing their job.

The putrid hatred will not stop at censorship it is only the beginning.

When one sees feminists airing the idea that pregnant white women should abort their babies, when intellectuals play with the idea that newborn white children should be taken from their mothers and exchanged with black babies in order to create a more accepting society, when opposing replacement migration in the western world is seen as controversial, when commercials intended for the Northern-European market no longer contains white people (see below), when celebrities and MTV can get a carte blanche for racism as long as it is directed towards white people – then the time has come to put our foot down.

I repeat one more time – this putrid hatred will not stop it is only the beginning  and this negative development with potential severe implications in our part of the world is not something that we should indulge any further.

Of course Google responded to Damore’s memo by stating that they champion diversity of ideas and freedom of expression – this is precisely why they fired Damore as Damore’s memo just happened to clash with their code of conduct….

GOOGLE1GOOGLE 2GOOGLE 3GOOGLE 4GOOGLE 5GOOGLE 6GOOGLE 7GOOGLE 8GOOGLE 9GOOGLE 10I pasted all of this in since controversial information has a tendency to conveniently disappear … what follows is some evidence of our current transformation over here in Europe. Today I was sitting in a roundabout and peeked out of my window. What I saw was a beer commercial featuring an Arabic looking man and a cellphone commercial featuring an African man, when we drove further I saw a commercial for a sports channel featuring an African and an Arab. Now bear in mind that I live in England. England is part of an island located in Northern-Europe. In fact here is a map of where England is geographically located:



This was a YouTube ad for this year’s general election in the UK … Apparently this is England in 2017. Underneath I’ve pasted in the front cover of a magazine lamenting the lack of diversity here in England. Last time I checked – this isn’t Africa. If the people of England and other European Nations don’t have a home that is theirs anymore then where do we go??? The YouTube ad is very representative for what you see more and more of in terms of commercials here in England. To support this is actually racist.




This is an old English puzzle. Take a good look.

Here you got an example of a story featuring a Muslim man mysteriously disappearing. The same has a tendency of happening with race-related articles. They just vanish.


This is an online survey launched by a YouTuber:


This is a must watch.



A Crash Course In Politics. (What It Is And What It Is Not).


Translated by me from the Norwegian article: ” The Paradox of the lifeboat – a crash course in politics” by Kent Andersen. Originally published on the 4th of April 2017 right here.

I love discussing politics – especially with people who I completely disagree with. As there is something deliciously civilised in fundamentally disagreeing about a topic, while still being respectful towards the other party. But after ten years in politics a problem surfaces: Way too many people don’t understand what politics clearly is, and what it is not.  And that’s not just the voters. I often read journalists and politicians who reveal a very bad understanding of what politics really is. I will therefore offer a quick and useful course to all.

When important democratic actors lack political understanding, it becomes a sign of illness for the democracy, as there is an absence of a firm foundation upon which right decisions can be made to steer society in the right direction. Everything from voters to kings have to see the difference between politics and its absolute opposite, emotionalism – if not the entire society can wither without anyone noticing or understanding the warning signs. Politics is not exactly cosy. It can even be quite brutal stuff in brutal times, so let me say something about that.

What is politics? 

Politics is synonymous with distributing assets and burdens in a society through the use of power. It is the business within a social system and field of ruling towards firmly established goals, where priorities have to be sorted, values/assets allocated and means chosen and used.

Keywords are therefore: Benefits and burdens – management and goals. Priorities, distribution of value and means within a social system and field. It is politics. The understanding of this determines whether or not our children will inherit a society at least as rich, harmonious, peaceful, safe and successful like the one we’ve enjoyed, something that is the entire point of the political management of a country: The goal is to leave behind something better to those who succeed us. How best to accomplish this, is disputed. That is why there exists different political parties, directions and ideologies.

What is the opposite of politics?

The definition of politics facilitates the identification of politic’s antithesis: Emotionalism.  Emotionalism has enormous appeal to voters and politicians alike, because it is so easy to unite around, and appears to be so “nice” in the moment. But emotionalism does not encompass leaving an improved society to our successors. Emotionalism is about the creation of the best society in the moment. Regardless of what the cost may be, or how the future will pan out. It is a competition of virtue-signaling – without any consideration for coming generations. Politics is responsible. Emotionalism is irresponsible.

“We cannot pit weak groups against each other.”

This is a favoured phrase for the emotionalists or for people who know zero about politics. Any budget is precisely about “pitting weak groups against each other.” Politics is exclusively about comparing groups: to prioritize who will get, and who will lose. To put A up against B is the exact meaning of politics. So if anyone utters this ridiculous sentence, then point at them and yell “emotionalist!” As they are about to ruin everything for your children.

With emotionalism the resources are always infinite. 

The budget can always be blown up by loans so that nothing has to be prioritized. “Everything is possible,” and nothing is impossible, and there are no negative consequences. Everything occurs in the vacuum of the moment, no burdens have to be distributed, and all future problems are marginalised, silenced or refuted. Emotionalism also lacks any standpoints besides good intentions: Everyone will receive, and nobody has to pay. Everything can grow into the heavens, nobody should feel left out, and nobody should lose. It is a reckless “free lunch,” that is tempting to fall for, as the dangers are not obvious: Emotionalism functions just as well as politics – in the short run. Emotionalism can actually erect a collection of magnificent public buildings in Bjørvika to billions of Norwegian kroners, in a capital that is broke, where tax levels are sinking, and loans decrease. Everything works out quite well….until the bill arrives.

Emotionalism works – short-term. 

Emotionalism is incredibly tempting to politicians who are elected for short stints. It works, and creates more friends than enemies. Emotionalism purchases votes in exchange for cash. But the price is high, as emotionalism is a credit card: Success always happens at the expense of the future.

Ruling through emotionalism means that nobody knows where they are heading, or where they will end up.

Ruling through politics means that everybody knows where they are heading, and where  they will end up.

Politics means keeping a clear, steady course, and communicating it: “We are going there, and not there.” It means a common understanding of where the end station is. (Without everyone necessarily agreeing on it – politics has nothing to do with consensus, if that was the case it would be lethally boring). Greats like Gamal Atatürk, Margaret Thatcher and our own Einar Gerhardsen, are in a class of their own, since they engaged in society building with a long-term vision, with clearly defined goals, plans and means. (Many hated them, but so what?) It was easy for the voters to understand what their society was to become. Emotionalism on the other hand, has no end goal, no plans for how to succeed, and no empirical success data to show to. The emotionalists promise everything to everybody, and promise that everything will improve as long as they can keep going a little bit longer. But they are lying. Coming generations will pay the price, and they will hate it.

It is not politics if:

  • You don’t lead after clear plans towards a defined alternative, but rather satisfy everybody in the moment.
  • You lack clear, quantifiable goals for the future which tells you what the end result should be.
  • You lack clear priorities. If one political sector is to be the focus, then others will lose focus and support.
  • Assets/valuables are allocated, and it is obvious who will benefit, but unclear who will carry the burden.
  • The means are hidden or diffuse.
  • There is more consideration for activist groups than the silent majority and coming generations.
  • The politics take place outside the voter’s social system, territory or sphere of interest.

There are therefore many criteria that have to be fulfilled in order for something to qualify as politics. If we look at the Norwegian leadership today, we can see that within several of our sectors the criteria are being met – whether it is the fishing industry, the public school system, or common transport. The only matter that stands out like a sore thumb, is Norway’s immigration policy — it is not only Norway, but also Sweden and the whole of Europe. In this area the checklist display big and systematic deficiencies:

The emotionalism that steers immigration:

  • Immigration is “impossible to control due to international laws and conventions, ” and is therefore not really managed. There are no systems or policies that ensures knowledge of what next year will bring.
  • Immigration politics have no clear goal and no clearly defined outcome that can be evaluated.
  • There are no clear priorities, besides the fact that the funds are infinite regardless of the cost – in contrast to for example, social help for the elderly, where there is always a lack of funds.
  • Assets are distributed without ever revealing who carries the burden: Welfare for the elderly, welfare in general, roads, school, police and the military are typical sectors who see their funds decreased, but the context is often hidden and badly communicated.
  • Activists wield enormous power, while the majority is marginalised.
  • Immigration is accomplished outside the nation’s social system, territories and spheres of interests. It does not benefit Norway or its inhabitants, but benefits other  countries and other nations’ citizens.

Politics is cynical in relation to what is needed.

Sadly politics come across as pretty “mean” in comparison to emotionalism. Politics is about conserving the voter’s own interests both today and in the future, and it is therefore “egotistical” over other countries and people. (But they have their own politicians, so why do they want ours?) Real politics can undoubtedly be perceived as cynical and brutal, because it encompasses a bone-hard knowledge of reality:

Resources are seen as limited and the budget absolute: If someone receives, there will always be someone who loses. When you walk in direction A, you remove yourself from direction B. The emotionalists always attempt to conceal such consequences, therefore there exists a good basic rule: Real politicians will always gather more opponents and critics that the emotionalists. Politicians become controversial, but look way better in posterity and historically when the easy emotionalism has been forgotten.

An illustration of how politics work: The story of lifeboat 4.

When (the for the occasion) fictional passenger ship “Politikos” tipped over and sunk in the North-Atlantic they failed to deploy all their lifeboats, and nearly 500 people jumped into the ocean. The few lifeboats that were actually deployed were not fully loaded, and it was therefore instantly initiated to rescue people from the ice-cold water.

Aboard lifeboat 4 the sailor….let us call him Winston Roosevelt, was given command of the freezing horrified passengers. He took control, and commanded immediately with an authoritarian voice:

– This lifeboat takes 50 people. Now we have to do everything to save people!

After a while there were 40 people aboard and the lifeboat was heavy loaded. Nobody knew how many days it would take for the rescue team to appear. The rations were limited, the future uncertain, but despite this Winston was crystal clear:

– There are more survivors! Row over there! We have to do everything to save people!

A cluster of 8 people were picked up. There was barely space for them. There were still too many people struggling in the ocean but Winston was uncompromising:

– There are 4 more! We have to do everything to save people!

They rowed over, and carefully hauled the four aboard, so that the boat was dangerously overloaded. But it did not help much. Eight people were laying ten meters away from them and were screaming for help in their utter desperation. Then Winston commanded:

– Row away!

Everyone aboard protested with tears and anger. They yelled:

– You said we had to do everything to save people! Winston gazed over the cramped lifeboat, and said sorrowfully but steadfast:

– That’s what we’ve done. Now we sadly have to get political.

Lifeboat 4 was the only one still afloat when the rescue team arrived.

Emotionalism can clearly be seen in a political environment where the photo of a drowned kid washed up on a beach dictates consensus rather than the collection of empirical data. This mentality could also be observed when Norway’s former leadership constantly declared that “Norway was not at war” despite deploying our soldiers to contribute to NATO’s military operations.