ACTIVISM. Activists from Norway’s Nest 1 held a public activity in the town of Horten on Saturday, followed by a leafleting session aboard a ferry.
Despite the cold temperatures, rain and snow, there were a lot of people in Horten on the day of the activism. The activists had many good discussions with passers-by, a large number of whom proved to be open supporters of the organisation. Predictably the police showed up, but the officers were surprisingly cordial and the harassment this time only consisted of the obligatory ID checks. Afterwards the system’s henchmen stayed in the background and observed the Resistance activists at work.
Towards the end of the activity, several women came along and relatively quietly (at first) positioned themselves in front of our flag, presumably in some kind of protest. Among them was a crying Sami and left-wing extremist mother who had a ten-year old boy with her. While the Sami cried, the boy taught us about “everyone’s equal value” and how “brown people can be clever too”. He also related how his mother had been so angry at the activists that “her ears got hot”. Eventually the boy, who was now cold, wanted to leave but had to wait patiently while his mother continued to stare at the Resistance Movement activists.
Other humorous incidents included a woman who wondered if we knew what the image on our leaflets was, then read a little of one and shouted “Dear god!” and disappeared from the scene. Another involved a tired-looking leftist who came and laid flowers next to the activists.
After the activity in Horten was over, some of the activists went to Moss via ferry and gave out more leaflets on board. The reception from the passengers was good, and no problems occurred. A group of tourists first declined the leaflets but came back a little later and got one for each of them.
Frihetskamp contacted Nest Chief Eskil Nielsen for comment:
Hi, Eskil! Can you say a few words to our readers about the activity in Horten?
It was a successful activity. We received many positive responses from people, as well as some negative ones. I thought it was particularly funny that our flag had some very interested onlookers.
Will the Nordic Resistance Movement return to Horten?
The Nordic Frontier is an English speaking podcast and a sister broadcast to the glorious Radio Nordfront. Our aim is to spread our political message of the Nordic Resistance Movement to a wider audience. Through theme- and discussion-based episodes we will dive deep into what National Socialism has to offer in the 21st century.
The format is not set in stone and everything is subject to change, the overall message is based on the political direction of the Nordic Resistance Movement but the individual opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are their own.
Permanent hosts: Andreas Johansson,Johan Svensson and Michael Hovila.
IDEOLOGY. The anti-Nordic homosexual lobby is often described as being “Cultural Marxist”, but what is Cultural Marxism? Where did it come from, and what are its goals?
Marxism entered the world stage in 1847 when the Jew Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto. It’s important to understand that communism’s ultimate goal was always a worldwide revolution and worldwide government. As it was the rich, white West that dominated world affairs at that point in time, it was the West that communists sought to attack, believing (with good reason) that the rest of the world would fall after the West was conquered.
Communism won a substantial victory when Russia was captured during the “Russian” revolution in 1917. The Marxists believed that world war would cause the workers to rise up and seize power in Western countries – but it didn’t happen; the workers didn’t revolt, despite the destitution that followed WWI. The Marxist theorists subsequently set about determining how they could achieve world revolution and world government now that the Western working class had abandoned the idea.
The Jew Vladimir Lenin
The new Bolshevik regime’s first leader, the Jew Vladimir Lenin, had a vision of attacking the West by liberating its colonies and mobilising them against their former rulers. Lenin’s intention was to cut the West off from its important mineral and energy resources in the colonies and thus bring it to its knees.
Another highly regarded Bolshevik, the Jew Leon Trotsky, wanted to use racial divisions to achieve worldwide revolution, and saw the potential of exploiting racial strife between whites and blacks to promote a revolution in the USA. It was partly due to pressure by Trotsky that the Socialist Workers Party adopted a racially charged resolution in New York in July 1939. This resolution argued that blacks had been the most oppressed section of American society for centuries and thus encouraged “complete and unconditional support” for their “fight for freedom in the proletariat revolution” against their “imperialistic repressors”.
The Jew Leon Trotsky
After World War I, two other leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy, and the Jew Georg Lukács in Hungary, posed the question as to why the working classes had not revolted. They both arrived at the same answer: that the working class had been indoctrinated by Western culture, and that this culture had to be removed before a communist revolution could occur. This was the beginning of “Cultural Marxism”. The emphasis was now on eradicating Western society by destroying the culture, rather than via purely economic and political methods, as had been detailed in the writings of Marx and Engels.
Gramsci in particular became famous for designing a strategy to destroy the West from within. Rather than relying on what he saw as an unreliable working class, he advocated the “long march through the institutions” as a means to revolution. The Marxists would take over the schools, the media, the churches, and all other institutions that safeguarded Western culture. Gramsci’s strategy has proven to be extremely successful, so much so that it’s no exaggeration to say that all the West’s cultural institutions have now been usurped by Marxists.
Sex education in schools was important in the dismantling of Western culture, according to the Jew Georg Lukács
Georg Lukács has had an even greater influence than Gramsci. In 1918 he became the culture minister of the short-lived Bela Kun government in Hungary. He asked the famous question, “Who will save us from Western civilisation?” and answered it by institutionalising what he referred to as “cultural terrorism”. One of the key components in cultural terrorism was introducing sexual education in Hungarian schools.
This attack on Hungary was unsuccessful, however, and the Hungarian working class became so furious that Lukács was chased out of the country. Lukács later showed up in Germany in 1923 at a “Marxist week”, a seminar sponsored by the Jewish millionaire Marxist Felix Weil. Weil and other participants at the seminar were fascinated by Lukács’s theories on Cultural Marxism, and Weil subsequently used some of his personal fortune to establish an institute at Frankfurt University, which later became known as the Frankfurt School. The purpose of the School was to discover a way to recruit new classes to the world revolution, following its rejection by the working classes. The intellectual framework created by the Frankfurt School became known as Cultural Marxism, or more popularly as “political correctness”.
From left to right: The Jews Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno
In 1930 the Frankfurt School appointed a new director, the Jew Max Horkheimer. Later, other intellectuals joined its ranks, like the Jew Theodor Adorno, the Jewish psychologists Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, and a young Jewish student by the name of Herbert Marcuse. It was at this point that the school broke away from the traditional Marxist view that culture was determined by economic factors and instead argued that culture is an independent and important aspect of society. The school also asserted that the working class would never bring about the world revolution and that it was therefore necessary to find new social classes that would. The question as to who should replace the working class as the spearhead in the world revolution was first answered many years later by Herbert Marcuse…
The Frankfurt School subsequently worked to amalgamate the ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Under the influence of Freud and others, the School understood that appealing to the masses’ feelings was much more important than appealing to their reason. Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays (who is practically unknown today but is one of the greatest influencers of the 20th century), developed theories on how to brainwash the masses. Bernay’s theories were later augmented by the British Tavistock Institute et al., and thanks to modern means of communication such as newspapers, radio, TV, film etc., the brainwashing of the masses has become practically ubiquitous and almost complete.
The Jew Sigmund Freud
One of the most influential publications by the Frankfurt School was The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno. The book is a polemic against “prejudices and discrimination”, chiefly of white people’s “discrimination” towards blacks. It was succeeded by the Jewess Betty Friedan’s feminist revolution, which was aimed at Western men. White heterosexual men were cast as arch villains and were accused of racism, sexism, homophobia and so on, with the ultimate purpose being to destroy white Western civilisation.
Globalist-sponsored feminists praise white genocide
Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution was realised by the Frankfurt School via means of a technique called “critical theory”. According to Max Horkheimer, it was the social theory of criticising all aspects of Western society, with the ultimate purpose of eradicating it. Horkheimer’s theory led to extremely destructive criticism of the West, particularly in the fields of religion, homogeneity, norms, family, morality, tradition, culture, sexual morals, loyalty, patriotism, masculinity, nationalism and conservatism.
When the National Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933, the Frankfurt School fled to the USA, but most of its members returned after 1945. Herbert Marcuse remained in America after the war, where he demonstrated an uncanny ability to popularise Cultural Marxism, and thus had an enormous impact on future generations. His Eros and Civilisation continued the synthesis of Marx and Freud and advocated for “liberating Eros” to create what he called “polymorphous perversity”. This was a continuation of Georg Lukács’ theories on using sexuality to destroy Western civilisation. Eros and Civilisation became extremely popular among the hippy movement in the 1960s.
Marcuse wrote in The Carnivorous Society [1970]:
One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment … there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned … what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.
What Marcuse meant by a “type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system” became clear when he popularised what he termed “the great refusal”: a process that utilised sexual liberation and the black and feminist revolutions at universities to convince students to hate white Western heritage. Marcuse used naive students as useful idiots by exploiting their sympathy for the poor and repressed coloured people of the world. As a result, students supported Trotsky’s permanent revolution without understanding what it really entailed.
History repeats itself…
One should bear in mind that the liberation of blacks and women was not a goal but a means for the Marxists. Cultural Marxists used blacks and women as useful idiots in order to fragment society via a divide-and-conquer tactic. The ultimate purpose was to destroy Western white civilisation, bring about world revolution and impose a world government.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds. The beliefs, attitudes and values of the West were subsequently dissolved, and millions of Western men and women would later come to believe and value the opposite of that which they did previously. It was a revolution of human thought.
The dissolution of the moral order brought about by the Cultural Marxists led to an altered perception of the white race. The worth of the white race in general – and Western men in particular – was downgraded, while the worth of all other races was raised. This was accomplished via ingenious propaganda, especially in school textbooks and the media. The Cultural Marxists were extremely clever at claiming that Western men were guilty of all the world’s woes, including war, slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and the repression of the lower classes. They aroused feelings of pity and sympathy for designated “victims” in the lower classes, while simultaneously demonising whites.
This moral dissolution of the Western moral order – together with systematic destruction of Western values – was the basis for the next step: the physical eradication of white civilisation. The Cultural Marxists encourage abortion, birth control, divorce, homosexuality, “carrier women”, drugs, miscegenation, the destruction of the traditional family, and unrestricted immigration of racial foreigners into white countries. This is a reflection of what the Cultural Marxists preach: white reproduction is evil, and that which prevents white reproduction is good.
White women must achieve “self-fulfilment” through education, jobs and careers, according to Cultural Marxists. Children and a family life are “obstacles”.
It is important to remember that the purpose of communism/Marxism is not the sharing of wealth; rather it is to concentrate all power in the hands of a few individuals and create a society in which they can live in luxury while the rest live in poverty or mediocrity. This is how communism has worked throughout history.
This is fact is overwhelmingly documented and clearly visible in today’s society. The Marxists have worked unrelentingly for 150 years to change the West’s view of itself, with the intention of initiating a process that leads to a social dissolution and the white West’s erasure. The Marxist social revolutionaries who strive to dismantle the Western power structure have written a vast number of books on the subject. These include the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Luckács, Ernst Bloch, and Frankfurt School members like Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Leo Löwenthal, Frederick Pollock, Franz Neumann and Herbert Marcuse.
One of the best-known and accurate descriptions of the coming global dictatorship is George Orwell’s 1984. Today the book is generally read as pure fiction, but it correlates frighteningly well with how the modern world looks and where we’re heading:
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – FOREVER.”
ACTIVISM. Members of Norway’s Nest 6 carried out a series of activities in the towns of Sandnes and Stavanger last Friday.
The activism began with a public leafleting session outside Skeiene high school in Sandnes. The members received a good response from the pupils, with the majority saying yes to a leaflet.
Next the Resistance Men went to Sandnes train station and distributed more propaganda before boarding the train to Stavanger and handing out leaflets to passengers.
According to one member, there was a noticeable divide in the passengers’ responses: “The younger generation were very curious and positive, with many having already heard about us. The older ones were less interested, even shocked.”
The last stop of the day was Stavanger, where stickers were put up in the town centre and leaflets were given out to passers-by. Nest 6 was very happy with the day and promise more innovative activities in the future.
A member commented: “It was a very successful day for the struggle, and more is on the way. If there is anyone living in Rogaland county who wishes to get involved, I recommend you apply for membership.”
GÖTA COURT OF APPEAL. The Attorney General wants it to be illegal to express oneself in a positive light with regards to National Socialism. The following is the closing argument of Fredrik Vejdeland, who spoke in his own defense, in favor of National Socialism before the Göta Court of Appeal on Friday, 2015-01-30.
On Friday the 30th of Janurary 2015, Fredrik Vejdeland stood on trial at the Göta Court of Appeal in Jönköping, accused of “hate speech”. Vejdeland, the editor of the news website Nordfront.se, had been accused and convicted for the publishing of “hate speech” in the form of several comments and in an article.
The criminalized expressions include: “Long live National Socialism”, “Long live Hitler”, “Death to ZOG,” “Crush Zion” and “Adolf Hitler, the greatest folk hero of modern times.” The prosecutor for the Attorney General, Fredrik Ingblad, built the case on straw men, using “fact interpretation” and other rhetorical tricks with which he managed to manipulate the court. Ingblad granted himself interpretation rights and gave his own biased definition of National Socialism and what it stands for with the intention of convincing the court that Nordfront stands for racial hatred, racial persecution and extermination-genocide, because we share the same -ism with others who have allegedly stood for this.
When the phrases in question were now being presented in a new trial at the Court of Appeal, Vejdeland chose to give a lengthy speech in order to properly explain not only what National Socialism stands for, but also what Nordfront stands for, what we represent and our intentions behind the words and ideas that we support.
Following the closing statements of both the defense attorney, Björn Hurtig, and the interrogator Fredrik Ingblad, Fredrik Vejdeland was permitted to conclude the arbitration. A visibly annoyed Ingblad reacted strongly to the court for allowing Vejdeland to hold his speech. Ingblad interrupted Vejdeland, claiming he felt personally attacked, but was subsequently reprimanded by not only a member of the courtroom audience, but by Vejdeland himself, and the judge presiding over the case.
THE ARGUMENT FOR NATIONAL SOCIALISM AS PRESENTED BY VEJDELAND:
Firstly, I wish to inform the court that the case against Nordfront presented by the Attorney General is politically motivated. For us it is obvious that the Attorney General wants to move forward to ban an entire ideology. But because it goes against the constitution to prohibit ideologies, the Attorney General and prosecutor Ingblad aim to prohibit any mentioning of this ideology in a positive light – which essentially leads to the same thing.
For each trial, he refers to an earlier trial in which another expression has been banned. And this case is very much a part of this jockeying for increased censorship. Just one day after the Örebro District Court made it illegal to call Hitler a folk hero, the District Attorney’s office began a new investigation concerning a sticker with a picture of Hitler; a picture of a relaxed Hitler in a pleasant office environment, sitting at a table with a vase of flowers beside him. According to Ingblad, this represents hate speech.
This sticker was shown to the court.
I am sure that if the District Court bans this sticker, and you find me guilty today, then this will lead to further jockeying for increased censorship. The next steps for the Attorney General would certainly be to prosecute the writers and publishers of all articles that present or discuss National Socialism in a positive light, and ultimately make it impossible, in principle, for a National Socialist to advocate for their own ideology.
One day you must put a limit on how much one can abuse the legal system – I suggest that it be today. I would like you to sit and think about whether it really should be illegal to call any political leader – regardless of ideology – a folk hero. In my opinion – one I share with many others – JosefStalin was a mass murderer. But I would find it absurd if someone was convicted in a court for having praised Stalin in general terms. And if a member of the Communist Party pays tribute to VladimirLenin, in general terms, I have to assume that the person in question is not advocating the mass murder of millions of Christians, rather that there is some other reason for honoring Lenin.
It would be equally unsound to assume that all leaders of democracies are mass murderers based on the actions of WinstonChurchill and Franklin D.Roosevelt and their terror bombings of German cities – in the name of democracy. Or because Harry S.Truman dropped multiple atomic bombs on Japan – in the name of democracy. Or because George W. Bush has been behind 1 million dead Iraqi civilians in a war waged – in the name of democracy.
Dresden 1945. German civilians intentionally targeted through bombings by the Allies.
You must yourselves realize how absurd this indictment is. How can a general honoring of Hitler lead to a conviction simply because someone else is guessing that this general tribute is about the celebration of a specific three-year period during the 56 years of Hitler’s life? I am referring to the three year period that the holocaust was supposed to have taken place. If we, at Nordfront, had earlier praised the Holocaust it would have been a different matter. In that case, Ingblad’s claims would have had some bearing, but then of course, we would already have been convicted of “hate speech” on the basis that we were espousing mass murder. We have never done and will never do so. It may also be relevant to this case that we believe that the so-called Holocaust – that is, the systematic extermination using gas chambers – never took place. I will not bore you with a long elucidation regarding the Holocaust, but as lawyers, you must surely see that there is no technical evidence that it ever took place. There is no documented orders nor are there any autopsy reports indicating that even one Jew was gassed to death.
According to our beliefs, the Holocaust was war propaganda for the victors in order to demonize the enemy, get them convicted at the war trials in Nuremberg, and draw the focus away from their own war crimes. Additionally, the Holocaust has always been a profit making industry for Israel. In 1975, Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, said that half of Israel’s infrastructure was built on German war reparations money.
And long after the war – not least today – the so-called Holocaust continues to be used as a political weapon to protect a certain group from criticism. And this political weapon is being used even today in this court case. I am not permitted to criticize the Jewish influence in Western countries without Ingblad playing the holocaust card in a completely irrelevant context. If the “Holocaust” had taken place – if irrefutable evidence came forth that it had occurred – I would be the first to admit I was wrong. But – and here I want to be extra clear – even if it had occurred, it has nothing to do with the National Socialist ideology and nothing to do with our attitude towards Hitler’s political and social achievements for the German people.
On the official website of the EU, Winston Churchill is described as one of Europe’s founding fathers and a “visionary leader”, without whom we would not today find ourselves “living in the realm of peace and stability that we take for granted.” The EU does not once mention Churchill’s terror bombings of German cities like Dresden and Hamburg nor do they mention the joint decision with Truman, Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek to employ the atomic bomb on Japan. So if the EU is permitted to describe Churchill as “a man of peace”, then Nordfront must have the right to call Hitler a folk hero.
Atomic bomb over Hiroshima.
A few days before we published the article that called Hitler a folk hero, we published another article that praised Hitler, clearly defining upon what the tribute was based. This article was also reported to the authorities, but the Attorney General did not pursue it, which lead us to believe that it was consistent with the law to describe Hitler in a positive light, even in a general way.
The article stated:
“For the social welfare system that we now take for granted, we have Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party to thank! Things such as paid vacations, sick pay, child benefits and unemployment benefits did not exist before being introduced by the NSDAP. The Swedish welfare state is copied directly from the NSDAP’s social policy program. […]
When Hitler came to power in 1933, there were seven million unemployed people in Germany. In four years, Hitler totally defeated unemployment.”
This is not the first time we have written about Hitler’s social policies which not only saved the Germans from the catastrophic situation in which they found themselves, but also helped the world to create political and social systems that have been to the benefit of many peoples, not the least of which are the people of Sweden.
I should be able to conclude my argument here and trust that you, the lawyers representing the constitutional state of Sweden, will understand that one cannot be judged for the content of a written article which in general terms honors a person “X “as a folk hero – be it Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill or any other actual or alleged war criminal. But because the Örebro District Court actually indicted me for this, and even had the nerve to claim that the verdict was “consistent with the law of the constitutional state”, I must clearly explain what our ideology is about – for us. It is relevant to this case that I provide an overall picture of National Socialism, and that our view of it – not just Ingblad’s – is presented to the court.
Up to this point, I have been convicted because Ingblad has utterly fooled the lay judges of the Örebro District Court by presenting his own false picture of National Socialism and through the clever use of rhetorical tricks. Ingblad is an expert in making use of what is called “guilt by association” as well as that which is called “argumentum ad populum”. Simply speaking, Ingblad states that because I am a National Socialist and Hitler was a National Socialist who gassed Jews, then I must also want to gas Jews – “guilt by association”. Ingblad also refers to the so-called people’s prejudices and assumptions about us and believes that it should be enough for a legal conviction if outsiders might perceive the general positive mention of Hitler as an indication that I am in favor of racial hatred and extermination – this is “argumentum ad populum”.
In one of the trials against us, Ingblad actually invented a new legal concept which he calls “fact interpretation”. This is obviously a refined version of “guilt by association”. Because we share the same -ism as Adolf Hitler – this is a fact – then this should be interpreted to mean that we are supportive of racial hatred, racial persecution, and the extermination of other races, when describing Hitler as a folk hero on our website.
Here is a quote from Fredrik Ingblad’s closing arguments in the District Court:
“When one pays tribute to what happened during the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler and German National Socialism, then it is hate speech.
… and what he stood for there is no possible mistaking, it is about racial hatred and racial persecution, a persecution and extermination of other races than the Nordic.
… When one honors Adolf Hitler and National Socialism in this context, then it is this that is being expressed, this that is being honored or is seeking to find acceptance for.”
First, Ingblad says that “When one pays tribute to what happened during the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler, then it is hate speech.” Then he continues by saying that what happened constituted racial hatred and racial persecution and extermination. But Nordfront has NEVER celebrated these things, although Ingblad claims we have.
Also noteworthy in this short excerpt from Ingblad’s argument, are two of the rhetorical tricks I have mentioned. First, Ingblad says that there is “no possible mistaking” what Hitler stood for, thereby making himself the mouthpiece for all people – this is “argumentum ad populum” and is completely biased. Then Ingblad speaks about the context, that we from Nordfront must be for extermination because we share the same -ism with Adolf Hitler – this is “guilt by association”, or, as Ingblad prefers, “fact interpretation”.
These terms – “guilt by association”, “argumentum ad populum”, “fact interpretation” – all belong in one of George Orwell’s books, and not in a constitutional state like Sweden.
The ideology of National Socialism is something quite different from what Ingblad presents. National Socialism as a political movement, arose in Germany about 1920. But National Socialism as an ideology, as an idea with ideological points, was created ten years earlier in Sweden. This National Socialism was formulated by Rudolf Kjellén, a political scientist known as the father of geopolitics and much more. Kjellén spoke about the importance of a national sentiment among its people. He said that the state is organic and consists of the people – that is a race – and that all classes of the people work together to eliminate social injustices. Kjellén called this “national community” and it was a critical element of what he termed National Socialism. Kjellén spoke in terms of cooperation within ones own ethnic group, but he did not speak of hostility towards other ethnic groups or races. The one does not automatically lead to the other.
Super Nazi Rudolph Kjellen – deceased before the Third Reich came into existence.
Kjellén is featured in Mein Kampf and his ideas were adopted by the German movement. Please note that the German National Socialist ideology does not either mandate racial persecution, or anything related to this idea. In fact, the official racial policy of the Third Reich spoke of something entirely different. I would like to read a statement from Dr. Walter Gross who, from 1933-1945 – that is through the entire period National Socialism ruled in Germany – was head of the NSDAP Office of Racial Policy. He said:
That which is most misunderstood about National Socialism, is its views of the world’s different races. It has been questioned whether the fundamental principles of race in the new world theory would not lead to an imperial perspective, and even contempt for people of other races. On the contrary; it is precisely these principles which offer the best guarantee of mutual tolerance and for the peaceful cooperation of all.
We appreciate the fact that other races are different from us. This scientific truth is the base, the motivation and, at the same time, the obligation for all racial policies, without which would, in practice, make a restoration of Europe impossible. Whether the other race is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ is not possible for us to judge. For this would require us to exceed our own racial limitations during the time it would take to judge, and assign us a superhuman, even divine, attitude, and the divine is the only one who can give such an assessment of the value or lack thereof of the many forms of life in the inexhaustible natural world.
And if National Socialism wishes to see the mixing of blood between individuals prevented, there is nothing in this to suggest contempt. After all, we Germans, ethnically speaking, are mixed. The National Socialist requirement is simply that the lineage of the blood and the biological laws should be considered more carefully in the future.
We do not want intermarriage between our people and foreign races because with such a mix of blood, the best, and most distinctive characteristics of both races are lost. But we will always be welcoming towards all guests who want to visit us, regardless of whether they are from a related or a foreign society, and our views on race give us a deeper appreciation for their basic characteristics in the same way that we wish to be recognized and respected for our basic characteristics.
These are the exact words of the man responsible for Germany’s official racial policies. This is the way in which the government wanted their people to view this matter. And this is the same view that I have and that is held by Nordfront. National Socialism is simply about the preservation of one’s own race and own culture. This is why we are against multiculturalism, because multiculturalism insists on the mixing of races and cultures, thereby making them into a gray mass of rootless individuals who can more easily be controlled by those in power.
My opinion, the opinion of Nordfront and the opinion of National Socialism, all provide the foundation for the right for all races to exist.
If all nations were to follow the racial policies as formulated by Dr. Walter Gross, the world would consist of free, independent and homogeneous states that cannot be controlled as easily by a small, globalist, power-wielding elite. Sweden would generally be Swedish, Japan would be Japanese, Congo Congolese etc. And we would definitely have less friction between peoples and nations compared with today, where millions of people referred to as migrants are moved around and dumped in places where there are already people with an established way of living.
Dr. Walter Gross, appointed by Hitler to lead a racial policy that promoted biodiversity among people.
It is not about racial hatred, rather it is about the fact that the mixing of peoples creates friction between these peoples and the result is that the best and most distinctive characteristics of both races are lost. I am proposing the protection of the uniqueness of all races, and the preservation of the Earth’s diversity. This explains why I am as far from being a hater of other races as one can be. Regarding the German attitude towards the Jews, it is true that the Jews were regarded with suspicion. But this had nothing to do with ideology, rather it was based on the experience of Jewish influence in Germany and how this influence was used.
During the 1910’s and 1920’s, there were several communist uprisings in Germany whose official purpose was to destroy the German nation and pave the way for the world communist revolution. The Spartacus Uprising, the Hamburg Uprising, and the November Revolution of 1918-1919 were all led by Jews. The Bavarian Soviet Republic, which came into being following another such rebellion, was led by three people – Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller and Eugene Levine – all of these were Jews.
Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller and Eugene Levine – leaders of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
Furthermore, the German media was owned by Jews, the Social Democratic Party was led by Jews, and the German bankers were, for the most part, Jews. Jews set the agenda of the German nation and the influence these individuals had was used, in many cases, to undermine the German nation.
But this, of course, is a “conspiracy theory” according to Fredrik Ingblad. One of these “conspiracy theorists” was Winston Churchill. Considered one of the foremost intellectuals of his time, he wrote the following in an article from 1920:
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (USA), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely … recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
This suspicion of Jews and their influential role in subversive activities was based on experience, and was a common concern in not just Germany, but most of Europe at this time. And the suspicion was not lessened when the most powerful Zionist organizations in the world declared war on Germany, in the name of Judea, on March 27, 1933, one week after the National Socialists seized power.
“Judea Declares War on Germany.”
The declaration of war – and it was the Jews themselves who called it a declaration of war – was about a worldwide economic war against Germany in order to economically destroy Germany. A Germany that already had enormous financial problems, where people were both starving to death or taking their own lives because they could not feed their families. They would be frozen out through, among other techniques, a boycott of German goods. Jewish organizations organized a variety of anti-German meetings held continuously until 1945, and gathered tens of thousands of Jewish sympathizers. The largest meeting assembled 55,000 Jews at Madison Square Garden in March of 1933.
The pictures we have all seen of the Germans boycotting the Jewish shops in Germany was a response to the worldwide Jewish boycott against Germany. It was a symbolic action and lasted just one day, on April 1, 1933.
Jews at Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933. These Jewish meetings are what prompted the boycott in Germany.
So even if you do not sympathize with this perspective, there was, in any case, a reason why there was a suspicion of Jews in Germany, not only from the National Socialists, but from many other Germans as well. The fact that the Jews in Germany lost their citizenship, and their opportunities to own the media and so on, were decisions that were fully legal, and were intended to permit Germans to determine the political conditions in Germany.
The “Holocaust” is a propaganda hoax, but the reality that Jews were placed in concentration camps with the eastward expansion of the war is indisputable. One can have opinions about this today, but there was a war, and Jews were perceived as potentially hostile to Germany, and many of those who sat in the camps did, in fact, fit this description.
The treatment of a people in a collective manner was also not in any way unique to Germany. The American President Roosevelt published a series of orders, which defined Japanese, German and Italian citizens as “enemy foreigners”. There were 110,000 American citizens, who happened to have Japanese ancestry, who were incarcerated in American concentration camps because they were “enemy foreigners”.
To summarize this part:
Fredrik Ingblad has argued that, “National Socialism is based on racial hatred, racial persecution and extermination.” This is a false claim. National Socialism is based on racial survival and the right of all races and people to exist and live in peaceful coexistence with one another.
Germany’s attitude towards the Jews was based on experience and has nothing to do with ideology. The “Holocaust” is a scam – at least according to us – and we would never praise it if it had actually taken place. When we call Hitler a folk hero, there can be a multitude of reasons why we do so. That we praise Hitler’s social achievements just days before the article calling Hitler a folk hero, makes it quite obvious that these social achievements are what we intend to praise. “Guilt by association”, “argumentum ad populum” and “fact interpretation” are rhetorical tricks and a weak means by which to argue that we mean something other than we do. Ingblad has not either been able to explain why he or “the people” (argumentum ad populum) should be granted the right to interpret what we mean when it comes to our ideology.
Prosecutor Ingblad with a paper-toting assistant from the Attorney General.
Now I would like to move on to the question of criticism of Zionism and the statement “Death to ZOG”. In this instance, Ingblad makes use of his same rhetorical tricks where he claims that Zionist “actually” means Jewish and where the expression promoting the destruction of a small Zionist elite that rules the world “actually” is an expression that promotes death to all Jews.
If we begin with Zionism, the definition, according to SAOL (The Swedish Academy Glossary), is given as this: “Jewish national movement aimed at strengthening Israel.” The problem here is that many Zionists want to strengthen Israel at the expense of others.
This is not simply our judgment. There are some Christian groups and Muslim groups, factions of the New Age movement, large factions of the left and, in fact, groups from all ranges of political camps, who agree with us. Moreover, there are many Jews, mostly Orthodox, who are against Zionism and view it as a mockery of the Jewish religion. So, already, the argument that the term Zionist is equivalent to Jew, is baseless.
The concept of ZOG refers to the Zionist influence in the Western countries, as well as their exercise of power on the global scale. And even here, Ingblad claims to believe that what we mean is that ZOG consists entirely of Jews. But here, Ingblad abandons the definition of the term as defined by the man who coined it, Eric Thompson. He says that most of these Zionists are, in fact, non-Jewish.
In the US, it is particularly clear that those who support the Zionist power-wielding elite are mainly non-Jews. They mostly belong to the Christian right or the neo-conservatives, and hold allegiance predominantly to the Republican party. In Sweden, the Liberal Party is the closest we have to a Zionist party, with many open Zionists as members.
That there might be a Zionist power-wielding elite with influence over Western governments is emphatically rejected by Ingblad as belonging to the category of “conspiracy theories”. Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of Harvard University and the University of Chicago respectively, believe differently. In a controversial report, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, the professors claim that there is a Zionist lobby in the United States who oversees American foreign policy and leads it in a pro-Israel direction to the benefit of Israeli, and not American, interests. This is achieved by activities, including but not limited to, providing multi-million dollar contributions to presidential candidates and through the “manipulation of the media”.
According to the research of these two professors, it was the Zionist lobby that drew the US into the Iraq war in 2003.
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby were not the only factors behind the US decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but they were the critical elements. Some Americans believe that this was a “war for oil”, but there is scarcely any evidence to support this claim. Rather, the war was motivated, in large part, by a desire to make Israel safe.
During this war, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died, but other numbers speak of nearly 1.5 million Iraqis who have died or been killed as a result of the war. And all this because a powerful Zionist lobby was prepared to incite a war to support their own Zionist interests.
Although “Death to ZOG” is not a slogan I use myself, I still believe that it is correct and just to use the words “death to” when referring to a powerful lobby that manipulates a nation to wage war against another nation for their own interests. It would be equally wrong if another lobby with such extreme influence over the world were to be Chinese, Swedish, Brazilian or otherwise.
Finally, I would like to cite one last thing that shows how truly ill-founded Ingblad’s case is. In his speeches, Ingblad has spoken about racial laws which lead to racial persecution which lead to extermination. And, as I have said, apparently the Nordic Resistance Movement is supportive of racial laws, racial persecution and extermination because we have expressed ourselves in a generally positive way about Hitler. Ingblad himself apparently holds the interpretation rights as do “the people”.
But, in fact, there are nations today that have racial laws and the nation that stands out most distinctly is Israel. The Zionistic occupation regime in Palestine passed, already in 1950, a racial law that gives Jews, wherever they currently live, the right to settle in Israel as well as automatic citizenship. Furthermore, Israel’s Arab minority are second-class citizens in Israel, because Israel is regarded as a specific “Jewish State.” There are many cases of Jews and non-Jews who are forbidden to marry each other, and Israeli Arabs who are not allowed to buy land in Israel. Palestinian associations in Sweden have written in the publication “Colonialism and Apartheid” about how the Palestinians have been treated in Israel since the Jewish occupation in 1967:
But the Palestinians’ life is not only restricted by barbed wire, concrete and machine guns; the civilian Israeli authorities exercise a different kind of control. They can require, for example, that the Palestinians must have permission to travel – not only to Israel or abroad, but to Jerusalem, other towns in the West Bank or just to the neighboring village. The Israeli authorities determine how much water the Palestinians are allowed to use, where they are allowed to build schools and houses, and they control the whole of the Palestinian business community.
In 1975, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution which stated that Zionism is equivalent to racism and racial discrimination. The background to the resolution could be attributed to the Zionist state of Israel’s treatment of Palestinian residents in the country since its founding in 1948 through the use of racial laws and racial discrimination.
Israel, thus, has racial laws and, in Israel’s case, it has actually led to exactly what Ingblad says racial laws will lead to – racial persecution and genocide. Racial laws that oppress other races are not something we want to introduce, but this is how the racial laws in Israel have been applied from their inception.
And so we are left with two questions:
1. Should it then be considered “hate speech” to pay tribute to Israel, wave the Israeli flag, and call Ariel Sharon a folk hero?
2. If we approach this using Ingblad’s unwarranted “Argumentum-ad-populum” style of argument, this would of course be “proof” that those who advocate for Israel are committing “hate speech”. In fact, in Sweden, where a probable majority of the population views Israeli policies with criticism, the words racial persecution, colonialism, apartheid and genocide come to mind when they hear the word Israel. And what these people think must then be taken into account in a court of law.
I have, today, attempted to explain what we really stand for and how absurd these charges are. But more importantly, I have attempted to show how dangerous they are in the context of a constitutional state.
Now, if you plan to condemn me for a general statement that Hitler was a folk hero, a general statement that the Zionist occupation regime or a racist ideology (according to the UN) should be crushed, or the other items which work to oppress opinion, treat people differently in the eyes of the law, and that limit our fundamental constitutional ideology in Sweden – then please … do not write in the verdict that there is “no acceptable reason based on the constitution” that would permit me to go free. Admit instead that Sweden is a totalitarian state where the oppression of an alternative opinion prevails, and where the Swedish courts throw people in jail, not because of crime, but because of their political views. Stand up for it then, and do not slander the terms constitution or constitutional state.
THE NORDIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT. After hard and successful work performed by Nest 1, the nest has grown to the extent that it was necessary to re-organise it into two nests. During the Activist Days it was announced that Nest 8 now has been founded. Its chief is Niklas Yngwe.
Nest 8 encompasses the counties of Södermanland, Västmanland, Östergötland and Örebro.Nest 8 counties marked in Green. Greater Stockholm is under the rule of Nest 1.
Nest 8 comprises of the counties of Södermanland, Västmanland, Örebro and Östergötland. These include several larger towns such as Eskilstuna, Västerås, Örebro, Norrköping and Linköping.
The highly active action group of Nyköping, which was the fifth most active municipality action group of 2018, is now part of the area belonging to Nest 8. The counties of Stockholm, Uppsala and Gotland island remain under the rule of Nest 1.
The formation of Nest 8 is a direct result of successful actions. In a longer perspective, the aim is to organically form a great many more nests around the Nordic region, due to the growth of the originally founded nests, and due to the fact that when “too large” the performance of a nest is suboptimal. This is further accentuated when a single chief has a very large and busy nest to rule over.
Niklas Yngwe, who now seizes the leadership of Nest 8, is a well-known activist within the Nordic organisation. Apart from being highly active on the streets, his voice is broadcast via the Swedish language activist podcast “More than Words” to which Yngwe is a regular contributor. Mr. Yngwe is also a live reporter for Nordfront TV at various activities. Furthermore, he ran for Swedish Parliament representing the political branch of The Nordic Resistance Movement during the 2018 Swedish national elections.
The Swedish branch for propaganda, news and media of The Nordic Resistance Movement, Nordfront, interviews Mr. Yngwe regarding the formation of Nest 8 and the future of political activism under its jurisdiction:
Will you please introduce yourself to our readers?
— Sure! My name is Niklas Yngwe, I will soon turn and thereafter permanently be 30 years of age. I live in Mellösaby outside of Flen with my common-law wife, four children and presently with eleven animals of various kinds.
I enjoy food, exercise, high-quality handicraft — axes, above all — and the community of the people now present within the Resistance Movement, and in the future with our whole people. I dislike liberal feminised men, noisy non-music, larger cities and crabs.
How did you react when you were presented with the plans of forming Nest 8?
— My spontaneous reaction was the joy of our organisation having grown to the extent that a new Nest could be established. I was also honoured by the offer of being appointed the position as chief over the Nest. I carefully reasoned with myself whether I really considered myself suitable for the task before I gave my reply.
Forming a nest is, naturally, an acknowledgement of success, and in Nyköping you have been particularly active during the past year. What reactions to the decision have you been met with the members and activists?
— Well, Nyköping certainly is a national socialist zone, thanks to the hard labour from equally tightly welded action groups. But there are a lot of good fighters in several of the other towns now belonging to Nest 8 that have done a man’s job during the past year. Reactions have been very positive, both regarding the formation of the new nest and the new organisational structure of the Nordic Resistance Movement as a whole. I would say it’s a primer and an impetus, and the comrades are at least as excited as I am, myself.
Unannounced flash demonstration in Nyköping, November 2018.
What’s the potential for growth within Nest 8?
— I know there are a lot of good people in Nyköping that sooner or later will join our ranks. Örebro, Norrköping and Västerås obviously perform very well in cultivating good activists. Eskilstuna is awakening just now. I know that in the latter city there are many young people who must begin to realise that the prevailing sub culture in town is unsound. My advice to them is to break free from the decadence; commence their ideological education and apply for membership with the Nordic Resistance Movement. This is, moreover, a general piece of advice which should be carefully considered by each and everyone with self preservation bearing “skiing genes”.
What are the greatest problems in connection with the separation from the biggest nest, Nest 1? — The greatest challenge will be delegating the correct formal positions to the right people in order for the nest to operate as friction-free as possible. With the right prerequisites we can focus on welding the new group together and exercise high quality actions.
Are there any plans for the coming year that you can disclose at this point? — Focus will be on recruiting members of good stock and raising the quality of the present establishment. Further, there are of course high expectations on a few cutting-edge actions and a strong presence at actions performed outside of our own Nest.
Raising the bar, what’s up with Nest 8 in five years’ time? — In five years I hope we have a new premises location, and that we have grown to the extent that it will be time to soon branch off yet another Nest.
Any words for all interested people living within Nest 8 who have not yet joined the ranks? Yes, “what are you waiting for?” It’s not befitting for a Nord to let other people do your work for them. There will never be a time when it becomes easy to do one’s duty. On the contrary, now is high time to do it anyway. Become a part of the resistance, and neutralise the reflection of a feminised liberal man every time you pass a mirror!
Finally, five quick questions on the direction in which Nest 8 is heading:
Public activism or spectacular activism? — Public.
Activities in the wilderness or martial arts practice?
— Martial arts.
Public lecture or niche, internal education?
— Internal education.
The Activist Days or the Nordic Days? — Activist Days.
Labour Day demonstration, 1st of May 2019, in Ludvika or in Kungälv? — Kungälv.
Nordfront gives thanks to Niklas Yngwe for taking the time to answer our questions and wishes for Nest 8 to create much success for itself.
The Nordic Frontier is an English speaking podcast and a sister broadcast to the glorious Radio Nordfront. Our aim is to spread our political message of the Nordic Resistance Movement to a wider audience. Through theme- and discussion-based episodes we will dive deep into what National Socialism has to offer in the 21st century.
The format is not set in stone and everything is subject to change, the overall message is based on the political direction of the Nordic Resistance Movement but the individual opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are their own.
Permanent hosts: Andreas Johansson,Johan Svensson and Michael Hovila.
ACTIVISM. The Nordic Resistance Movement conducted a protest outside the Embassy of Israel and held a speech about Israel’s Zionist terrorism. Photos, speech and video included in this summary.
Members of the movement holding a banner that says “Terrorist state of Israel — Keep your hands off from Syria!”
Two days ago the Nordic Resistance Movement held a protest outside the Embassy of Israel in Helsinki, where they spoke about the Jewish criminal state of Israel and their terrorism waged in the Middle East, causing chaos that fuel the refugee flood going into Europe. Israel has recently made several new airstrikes in Syria, killing not only local but also foreign volunteers who have risked their lives in the fight against the Islamist organization ISIS.
Police arrived outside the embassy five minutes after the speech was started, who seem to have been called there by a bystander. They started by asking the members to disperse from the front of the embassy building, calling it a disturbance, while there was a clear path on both sides to walk past. The movement’s members continued to hold their position, and more policemen started to show up after a while. After the speech was held, the organizer of the activity went to the police and told them that they were done there, but he was then quickly arrested for being suspected of breaking the law concerning public assembly. The activist was released half an hour later.
Overall the protest was a success for the movement. The message against Israel’s terroist actions was deliverered and once again it was shown that despite the ban on the Nordic Resistance Movement, National Socialism is more alive in Finland than ever.
Organizer of the activity talking to the Finnish PoliceActivist being detainedMembers of the movement giving their opinion about the Embassy of IsraelMovement’s member marking their presence by drawing a RiksrunaMovement’s activist giving a speech
Speech translated to English:
Zionism terrorism must be stopped
The Jewish criminal state of Israel has unexpectedly in 2019 started terrorizing the Middle East, causing chaos that fuel the refugee flood into Europe. Although the Middle East’s unrest may often seem like a distant phenomenon to us, the consequences of the refugees flooding in are being felt in its extreme, as the crimes of the paedophile networks in Oulu, Helsinki and Turku show.
Israel has recently made new bloody airstrike in Syria, killing not only local but also foreign volunteers who have risked their lives in the fight against the Islamist organization ISIS. The International news’ threshold was exceeded when the Jewish state spread death in the Syrian capital Damascus and murdered a dozen or so people with missiles.
According to Syrian army sources, Jews fired missiles in several waves in the middle of the night. By their attacks, Israel has systematically violated international law, which only shows that the law is not the same for everyone. While Zionists can break the law as they see fit, for example, nationalist or anti-Zionist countries may be subject to international sanctions, even without breaking the law. Examples are countless from Austria to Iran. International law is just one of the forms of Zionist power.
In recent years, Israel has made hundreds of attacks on Syria to support extremist Islamists to make a coup d’etat and to destroy the Arab nationalist, anti-Zionist, Western banks hostile government of Bašar al-Assadin. Israel seeks to prevent the rebuilding of Syria and to cast a new impulse to the Muslim extremists operating as Zionist deputy warriors in Syria. Despite the heavy use of force, Israel is, in the end, only a weak parasite of international politics, which is dependent on the economic and, in particular, military support of the West. Since Israel is not able to defeat the governments it hates by itself, it will have to resort to the aid of the corrupt elite of America and Europe.
At the turn of the year, Jewish lobbyists forced the American President Donald Trump to skip his previous decision to stop America’s military occupation in Syria. Even in the fall, Donald Trump said that America did not need to stay in Syria because the ISIS terrorist organization was defeated. Isis was formerly known as the “Islamic State”, which ruled over large areas of Syria and Iraq. However, the Syrian government and its allies have destroyed ISIS, which is fragmented from a state-like organization into small fearful guerrilla groups. The United States has used the “fight against ISIS” as an excuse for occupying Syria. In reality, the United States are pushing the interests of the Jewish state of Israel in Syria. Israel wants to keep Syria weak and helpless because the Syrian regime is opposed to Zionism. Trump justified the about-turns by claiming to the voters that ISIS was not actually beaten yet. As long as one of the few groups of terrorists on a shoelace budget uses the name “ISIS”, America has an excuse to continue to subjugate Syria to Israel. Despite Israel’s grave war crimes, Syria has won the war.
Now the country has begun to repair the infrastructure destroyed by Zionists and extremist Islamists and to build the basis for economic growth. Recently, Syrian President and Vice President of Iran announced reconstruction plans aimed at increasing Syria’s economic self-sufficiency. Syria and Iran are currently building, among other things, a common banking system to prevent the Zionist lobbying western economic sanctions from destroying local welfare. This is something that will infuriate Israel, whose entire existence is based on the exploitation of the global banking sector. The Zionists did not succeed in destroying Syria, but the plan to destroy Europe is determined to proceed.
Shortly after the attacks in Syria, the world was told about the appeal of the so-called European Liberal Intelligence against European nationalism. This intelligence team is led by a bloodthirsty Jew named Bernard-Henri Lévy. Zionists living in Europe draw up a manifesto, in which they call themselves to stand for “liberal and democratic values” fighting “European patriots”. The Manifesto was published in several of Europe’s largest newspapers, and its signatories include well-known “philosophers”, writers and other academic influences. The Manifesto was a complete symbol of Zionist double standards. The text was attacking nationalism, violence and totalitarianism, even though Lévy and the illegitimate Jew, Anne Applebaum, were the loudest advocates of the Libyan and Iraq wars. Applebaum has even stated that Palestinian refugees shouldn’t be allowed to return to their homes in all cases.
So, in a nutshell, the message of the Manifesto was that we needed a “liberal and open Europe” and a Middle East that was subject to Zionist and racist terror. Israel demanded Western countries to destroy Iraq and Libya for the same reasons as Syria: the states had a self-sufficient economic system and a government that refused to accept Zionists commands. The independence and economic stability of the states meant that they were able to form a military counter-force against Israel. That’s why they had to be destroyed.
While Zionists insist on Europeans thinking of internationalization and pacifism instead of nationalism and militarism, Zionists themselves are continually launching new wars to expand Israel, which is a state that cherishes Jewish racial purity. Israel was founded in 1948 after the brutal campaign of unrestrained terrorism against the British and Arabs. Millions of Palestinians were driven out of their homes and they are not allowed to return because the ethnic cleansed areas are just for Jews. Insurmountable violence and racism have been justified in the history of Israel by the fact that the Jews had no other place to go, which is one of the most brutal lies in history. The Jews already had their own state, Birobidžan, before Israel, where life would have been much safer than in the bitter Middle East. Birobidžan still exists. The Zionist movement is therefore lying when it claims in its propaganda that the establishment of Israel was the only way to secure the future of Jews and sovereignty. Swiss-size Birobidžan is known for its tranquillity and natural resources. The Zionists have justified Palestinian conquest by the fact that, for millennia, Jews have been subjected to violent persecution.
If the fear of violence had been a real motive for the establishment of a Jewish state, the Jews would not have gone to the Middle East to murder Arabs but settled in peaceful Birobidžan. The Jewish Autonomous Region has never experienced anti-Semitic violence. Why has their original homeland, Birobidžan, not been tempted despite its safety? Unlike Palestine, it is not at the heart of world politics nor oil and gas deposits. It does not caress their self-esteem, which have built upon racist teachings of the Talmud identity. Birobidžan offers security, a steady life and physical work.
The violent occupation of Palestine and the ongoing wars against neighbouring countries, in turn, offer excitement, fame and mammon. There are therefore no acceptable reasons for the Israeli Jewish occupation and the Zionist terrorism in the Middle East.
The worst thing about Israeli terrorism for us Finns is in the end that every new war is aggravating our demographic catastrophe, because there is no end to the refugee flood. Zionist terrorism must be stopped, and Israel must be abolished.
It is the duty of every European nationalist to fight against the Zionist enemy until the Jewish rogue state established in Palestine is destroyed!
ACTIVISM. Activists from the Danish and Norwegian branches of the Nordic Resistance Movement have been out advertising their respective websites with glowing LED banners this week.
The Danish banner was displayed on several bridges in Glostrup, a suburb of Copenhagen, during the busy evening rush hour period, while the Norwegian banner was debuted in the town of Ski, Eastern Norway. The Finnish Vastarinta.com banner was also recently displayed.
As with the Nordfront.se banner that was recently unveiled in Ludvika, the Danish and Norwegian versions were gifts from Finnish Resistance Movement activists.
IDEOLOGY. In this article, Nest Chief Daniel Gerdås explains his views on the so-called climate crisis and other more tangible environmental problems.
Nobody can have...
The Swedish branch for propaganda, news and media of The Nordic Resistance Movement, Nordfront, interviews Mr. Yngwe regarding the formation of Nest 8 and the future of political activism under its jurisdiction:
