Three Nordic Resistance Movement activists in Norway have been convicted for “hate speech” for hanging up banners and a flag bearing the swastika.
Three Resistance men have been convicted for “hate speech” for hanging up three banners containing swastikas and the text “We’re back!” and for raising a swastika flag in Kristiansand on 9 April 2018.
The men first heard of the decision via reports in the system media early last week, ahead of the supposed date of their sentencing on Thursday 5 September. The court completely dismissed the defence’s objections and stated that the use of the swastika (which isn’t illegal in Norway), together with the text “We’re back!”, constitutes “hate speech” in this context.
The three men have now had their names, photos and ages published in the press, as well as some untrue claims about their pasts, all for hanging up three banners and a flag. This is in contrast to paedophiles and other serious criminals who often have their identities censored in “Norwegian” media.
Frihetskamp has been in contact with Tommy Olsen, chief of the Nordic Resistance Movement in Norway and one of the men convicted, to hear what he thinks about this decision and the media’s scribblings on the matter.
Hi, Tommy. According to the system media, you have been convicted in court for “hate speech”. What do you think about these developments?
We were told by the court to attend on Thursday 5 September to receive the judgement, but instead it was announced via the system media. That was my first thought. Otherwise it didn’t come as a surprise that we were convicted, considering the political climate that has arisen in Norway since 1945, and which has become steadily worse as the opinion corridor has been narrowed and speech has been criminalised.
Can you briefly explain why you didn’t accept the fine issued by the police but chose to go to trial instead?
We didn’t accept the fine because it was for “hate speech”, an ambiguous clause that can be interpreted however one wishes, and which is increasingly used to gag political opposition.
The court is of the opinion that the use of the swastika, together with banners with the text “We’re back!” constitutes “hate speech” in this context. What do you have to say to that?
It’s an opinion, yes, that’s true. With an ambiguous clause, they can interpret it however they want. So seeing as they have already professed their belief in the victors’ version of the war, especially the straw man; i.e., the malicious portrait which was later painted about National Socialists and National Socialism – it isn’t strange that they then think the worst.
The swastika and the text “We’re back” is not “hate speech” against other races or foreign ethnic groups. First and foremost, the swastika is an ancient symbol, used by our race for thousands of years, and which we also spread around the world on our many travels. During World War II the swastika was also used by Adolf Hitler, precisely because of its connection to our race and history. As such it was a completely natural choice for those who fought for their people and race. Not only have thousands upon thousands of whites fought against globalism under the swastika flag, but also thousands upon thousands of Africans, Arabs, Asians and Jews. Unfortunately the globalists won the war and subsequently imposed the politics we see the consequences of today. In other words, the swastika flag is not synonymous with racial hatred, but rather a symbol of the resistance against globalism, in which different races were allied.
The court also stated that promoting a “Nazi and race-based ideology” on 9 April 2018 in a place where people were subjected to violence and torture during WWII cannot be defended as freedom of speech. What do you have to say to that?
Firstly, we are National Socialists, not “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis”, the difference of which I also explained in court, clearly to deaf ears. And yes, we are racially conscious, which does not automatically mean we are race-haters. We do not want foreign incursions at the cost of our own people and future, but that does not mean that we hate Ali in Pakistan just because he’s of a different race.
We chose 9 April because we wanted to show that the resistance to globalism is not dead, that National Socialism lives and the struggle continues. Regarding the date of 9 April, most people have only heard parts of the story and have only been told that we were occupied by hostile forces from Germany. But that’s not quite what happened. The globalist Allies had plans to invade Norway on 8 April, so National Socialist Germany felt it necessary to come to the country’s rescue. The Germans succeeded in arriving before the Allies and thus prevented Norway from becoming a war zone under the control of the Bolsheviks and Zionists. We can be glad the Allies didn’t get here first.
Regarding the location, the Archive Foundation was chosen because its representatives had previously expressed their opposition publicly to us here in Kristiansand. It isn’t uncommon for us to conduct actions against organisations who spread lies about our movement, or who are openly globalist and conduct anti-Norwegian activities. That’s just something they’ll have to put up with. Furthermore the building the Archive Foundation is in was not taken over by the Gestapo on 9 April 1940. Exactly when the German air defence troops took control of the building, I don’t know, but I doubt it was 9 April. Beyond that I would take their stories about the use of torture with a pinch of salt, even though there certainly were not good conditions everywhere at all times during WWII. War is war, and during war people are taken captive on both sides. The National Socialists, however, were far more humane than the Allies. The Allies’ war crimes during WWII have been hushed up by their creation of the “holocaust” myth and “evil Nazis”, which has served as a smokescreen to draw focus away from their own crimes. Despite all the atrocities that communism and Zionism have committed in the world against whites and Christians – then and now – no one talks about “hate crime” or “hate speech” when the hammer and sickle are spray-painted on buildings with the words “armed revolution”.
What are your thoughts on this matter in regard to “hate crime” and “hate speech”?
“Hate crime” is a new thing, an introduction to an Orwellian society – a society where criticism and resistance against those in power is considered something criminal, and where they legitimise political censorship with their own made-up laws. With such an ambiguous clause, the opinion corridor will become continuously narrower, and more and more people will be convicted for “hate speech”.
When discussing “hate crime” and “hate speech”, people usually mean criticism of immigration, criticism of the homo lobby, and just being a National Socialist and promoting National Socialism. In other words, it’s a law directed at the political opposition. They believe that criticism of immigration policies, the homo lobby’s agenda and actions, or promoting National Socialism in a good light is synonymous with hating other races or homosexuals as individuals. But what it’s really about is criticism and resistance against politics and activities that are very negative for our own people.
Furthermore, hate is not a crime, but rather a completely natural feeling that is connected to love. Every healthy person will automatically hate that which destroys or threatens what they hold dear. Without hate, one would be a sick person, apathetic and totally devoid of feelings. It is obvious then that I hate the politics and the people responsible for them who attempt to destroy that which I hold dear; i.e., my people and their future. I hate these actions and the people responsible for them with all my heart.
Do you have anything to say on what’s been written by the system media? Do you think they have represented this matter correctly?
No, absolutely not. As usual, they heavy-handily create a “terror threat” out of nothing when they write about “Nazis” and dish up utter lies and half-truths. Among other things, their representation of what has been said is not always correct. There is a lot of copying and pasting, as well as adding sentences that were never said.
I also noticed the media has attributed a conviction to me that I do not have. I have never been convicted for drug offences, and I am a total opponent of the use of drugs. Furthermore it can be said that I defended myself against a gang of immigrants who ran after me 19 years ago, which meant it was not offensive violence on my part. On that occasion, we had made some new acquaintances in Rogaland and were on our way to one of their houses when the immigrants came running after us and wanted a fight. In other words, the media only tells parts of the story and avoids telling the whole truth. It is also a 19-year-old conviction, which the media continuously brings up to portray me as having attacked some innocent immigrants completely unprovoked. But we don’t call them the lying press for nothing.
Thank you for the interview. Is there anything else you’d like to add?
As a nationalist in a globalist society, you must take into account that you will get a higher sentence from the court system based on what you believe, and that you will be portrayed as a monster in all pro-system media. I’m personally used to shitstorms so it’s like water off a duck’s back to me. But it’s important for other nationalists not to be influenced by the lying media’s portrayals and subsequently develop a fear of being associated with anything that is regarded as being more “extreme” than they are. Unfortunately, there are those who have developed such a fear and who continuously adapt themselves to the mainstream and become more and more moderate, until there is no difference between them and the globalists. Today such people gladly praise WWII Bolsheviks while deriding true National Socialists who fought against globalism.
If you are unable to avoid being misled by the system media’s reporting, I recommend cutting them out completely and instead choosing alternative media like Frihetskamp.