1,560 words
On November 2, 2019, I was detained by Norwegian police on the orders of the Norwegian Police Security Service (Politiets Sikkerhetstjeneste, PST) to prevent me from delivering a lecture at the Scandza Forum in Oslo.
Norwegian journalists investigating my detention have requested access to the PST’s letter explaining their rationale for my arrest. Their requests have been denied on the grounds that the document is “classified.”
However, it is my right under Norwegian law to see this document, and it is also my right to make it public, which I am doing below in JPEG and PDF formats. I have made only one alteration to this letter. I have removed the name and signature of the responsible officer, lest I be accused of some form of harassment.
The letter is followed by a translation into English (with thanks to Frodi Midjord) as well as my commentary showing that the PST simply copied the rationale for my arrest from a Left-extremist (antifa) blog that was openly trying to sabotage the Scandza Forum. Furthermore, the PST clearly failed to make even the most cursory attempt to verify the claims of such a biased source.
Finally, I point out that in addition to the frankly laughable claim that my speech at Scandza was likely to promote political violence, the PST makes it abundantly clear that their aim is simply to suppress freedom of speech and thought about alternative political ideas in Norway, and they are doing so at the behest of unelected and unaccountable Left-wing extremists.
English Translation
From:
POLICE SECURITY SERVICE
PO Box 4773 Nydalen
0421 OSLO
To:
Directorate of Immigration (UDI)
RE: REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DEPORTATION
The case is: Greg JOHNSON, US citizen, date of birth unknown.
In reference to the phone call earlier today.
PST has information that the above may travel to Oslo Gardermoen Airport today.
According to public sources, Greg JOHNSON has been announced as one of the speakers at the Scandza Forum, which is being held in a secret location in Oslo on 02.11.2019.
Greg JOHNSON is one of the front men in a network of writers and lecturers who advocate Jew-hatred and racial theories, as well as White Nationalism. In the invitation to Scandza Forum’s conference on July 1, 2017, he was referred to as “One of the leading ideologues in the White Nationalist movement.” He is, among other things, the editor of the online Alt-Right publication Counter-Currents.
JOHNSON has previously expressed support for how Anders BREIVIK justified the July 22 attack, and has referred to the terror as “necessary.” JOHNSON also wrote an article following the BREIVIK trial describing his newfound “respect” for the mass murderer, who he believed had “acted out of loyalty to his people.” JOHNSON further describes that BREIVIK “comported himself in a dignified manner and made a forceful, intelligent, well-argued case for his views and actions.”
In a text published on May 18, 2012, JOHNSON supposedly wrote: “The Norwegian Labor Party is responsible for all of the violence caused by their policies, including the inevitable violence by Norwegians who get fed up and finally fight back.”
The Scandza Forum is an international network of Right-wing extremists who regularly hold gatherings in the Nordic countries. Previous meetings in 2018-19 have attracted 50-200 participants, several of whom have been well-known Right-wing extremists. Right-wing ideologues from the US and Europe are invited to speak at the meetings.
The PST considers it likely that the ideological message conveyed during these meetings may inspire the participants to engage in politically motivated violence.
PST is concerned that JOHNSON, through attending a conference organized by the Scandza Forum, will help contribute to increased radicalization, inspiring engagement in politically motivated violence, and help give the Alt-Right/Identitarian milieu a stronger foothold in Norway.
It is PST’s assessment that the above person represents a threat to basic national interests and that the conditions for expulsion pursuant to section 126, second paragraph, of the Immigration Act are fulfilled. It is the opinion of the PST that if he carries out the planned lecture, any possible subsequent meetings, or other similar gatherings, it could help inspire or motivate extremist actions and attitudes.
It is requested that the UDI [Directorate of Immigration] assess whether the conditions are fulfilled in order to make a decision on expulsion from the state on the basis of § 126, first paragraph, second sentence, of the Immigration Act.
Police Security Service, November 01, 2019
Comments by Greg Johnson
The Norwegian Police Security Service(PST) letter of November 1, 2019 supporting my detention and expulsion from Norway is disturbing for three main reasons. First, I was detained and deported based on false information that the PST never bothered to check. Second, the main charge against me—that I am an apologist for terrorism—is a complete inversion of the truth, and a highly damaging one. Finally, the letter clearly indicates that I was expelled not simply because of the (wholly spurious) threat of political violence, but because the PST seeks to suppress National Populist (“Alt Right” and “Identitarian”) political ideas in Norway.
The case for my detention and expulsion was based on a couple of blog posts written by Harald S. Kungtveit and Jonas Skybakmoen on October 31st on Filter Nyheter, a Left-wing extremist (“antifa”) blog:
- “Hailed Breivik’s Rationale for the July 22 Terror—Now he is Going to Oslo to Speak for ‘White Nationalists’” (Hyllet Breiviks begrunnelse for 22. juli-terroren – nå skal han til Oslo for å tale for «hvite nasjonalister»)
- “Terrorist Researcher thinks Norway Should Deny Breivik Admirers Entry before Conference in Oslo” (“Terrorforsker mener Norge bør nekte Breivik-beundrer innreise før konferanse i Oslo”).
As I argue at length in my essay “Anarcho-Tyranny in Oslo,” these articles are deeply dishonest, quoting passages and single words of my essay “Breivik: A Strange New Respect” out of context to argue for a complete inversion of my meaning.
The PST’s letter, for example, copies the Filter Nyheter’s claim that I regarded Breivik’s terrorism as “necessary,” whereas taken in context it is clear that I am simply referring to Breivik’s own rationale for his terrorism.
The PST’s letter also copies Filter Nyheter in stating that after Breivik’s trial, I had a newfound “respect” for him, ignoring the facts that (1) “respect” is a relative term, and prior to his trial I had expressed utmost contempt for Breivik (see my article “Anders Behring Breivik: The Neoconservative Rambo”), so I had in effect raised him a few rungs in hell, (2) I concluded that Breivik still failed to make a compelling case for terrorism, even on his own terms, and (3) I offered my own powerful case against terrorism.
It is clear to me that the PST never checked the statements in Filter Nyheter. Whether it was out of collusion or simple incompetence needs to be determined.
Presumably, if the Norwegian PST thinks that I should be detained and deported to prevent me from giving a speech, they must think I am a highly persuasive individual. But if they had made even a cursory search to see the sorts of things I actually say, they would have learned that I am famous in White Nationalist circles for condemning terrorism. For instance, the last talk I delivered at a Scandza Forum meeting (Stockholm, March 30, 2019) was called “Against Right-Wing Terrorism.” Indeed, I have published more than a dozen articles over the years condemning Right-wing terrorism (listed here: “Greg Johnson Arrested in Norway for Thoughtcrime”).
If the PST is really interested in decreasing the likelihood of Right-wing terrorism, they should have welcomed me to Norway with a red carpet.
The PST argued that I be detained and deported because my speech was a threat to national security on three grounds: (1) that it “will help contribute to increased radicalization,” (2) that it will inspire engagement in “politically motivated violence,” and (3) that it will “help give the Alt-Right/Identitarian milieu a stronger foothold in Norway.”
First of all, I must point out the sheer absurdity that the PST somehow divined these outcomes were likely without knowing the topic or even the title of my speech. (My speech is called “The Very Idea of White Privilege.” The topic of the conference was Human Biodiversity.)
Second, when one drops the wholly spurious claim that my speech represents a terrorist threat, all that remains is the transparent motive to use the power of the state to suppress free debate and free thought about political ideas. The PST is, in fact, acting as the Thought Police.
I have many readers and friends in Norway. I was invited to Norway to address them. I am appalled that the Norwegian state sent police to prevent me from speaking.
But it is especially galling that I was detained under false pretenses concocted by Left-extremists whose express purpose was shutting down the Scandza Forum.
The charge of being an apologist for terrorism is especially alarming, given that in today’s world, people who are accused of terrorism are subject to extrajudicial imprisonment and torture, to say nothing of personal and professional damages.
It is deeply disturbing that such damaging charges from such suspect sources were not checked, as their falsehood could have been easily ascertained. This is a serious lapse of professional conduct and basic ethics. In a free country, the state does not pass down momentous, life-changing judgments and dispatch armed police to prevent an individual from speaking based on unchecked assertions made by his political enemies. This is the kind of behavior one associates with totalitarian states.
Greg Johnson, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief
Counter-Currents
[email protected]
18 Comments
They nearly plagiarized Filter Nyheter‘s hit pieces.
“The Scandza Forum is an international network of Right-wing extremists who regularly hold gatherings in the Nordic countries.”
It is important to note that this description of the Scandza Forum is completely false on two points:
1. The Scandza Forum is a conference (i.e., an event), not a “network.” We don’t have any members and we are not responsible for the ideas or actions of everyone in the audience, who is watching our conference, no more than a movie theater is responsible for all the actions or ideas of their movie-goers. That is a no-brainer. It is obvious that they are constantly mislabelling the event as a “network,” so that they can smear us with guilt by association.
2. The Scandza Forum is not “Right-wing extremist,” according to the PST’s own definition of the term. The PST defines “extremism” as willingness/desire to use violence to achieve political goals. We are, again, a forum for political and philosophical debate, which is the opposite of violence, and we have never advocated violence as a means to reach political ends. In fact, at the two latest Scandza Forums (Copenhagen, 12 Oct, and Oslo, 2 Nov), there were violent Left-wing extremist mobs trying to physically attack our guests (in Oslo they were even shouting, repeatedly, that our guests should be shot!), and we didn’t even use violence in self-defense.
“Politiets Sikkerhetstjenestes definisjon av ekstremisme refererer til en vilje til å bruke vold for å oppnå politiske, religiøse eller ideologiske målsetninger.” (PDF, p. 15)
https://www.phs.no/biblioteket/anmeldinger/arkiv/2018/oktober/hoyreekstremisme-i-norge-utviklingstrekk-konspirasjonsteorier-og-forebyggingsstrategier/
What they are trying to do here, is turn legitimate and peaceful criticism of mass immigration into a crime. Norwegians should find that deeply disturbing.
I so agree with your post and especially your last sentence: “What they are trying to do is to turn legitimate and peaceful criticism of mass immigration into a crime”. This is absolutely the CORE issue of much right-wing sentiment in the United States, and especially California where I live 125 miles from the border. Los Angeles is a morass of far too many people, and hundreds more move in weekly. While I am concerned, and agree, with all the issues presented at Counter Currents, and certainly uphold the ‘anti-terrorist’ ideals of Dr. Johnson, I am mostly upset with the ‘open borders’ and egalitarian stance of the Left Wing in this country. Recently, it has hit me physically — I now must move out of Los Angeles because of the bad air quality which has resulted for me in a diagnosis of COPD. Too many cars because of too much acceptance of Mexican et al. invasions resulting in overpopulation. I’m literally ‘sick’ of immigration. I’m looking at small towns in Northern California, with demographics more agreeable to my health. We must get serious about “the building-out of White Nationalist communities”, below the radar of the ‘thought police’ which exists everywhere now, it seems.
Why do you think that you were detained and prevented from attending the conference, while Kevin Macdonald was not? He could much more convincingly be accused of “Jew hatred.” This site has little in the way of overt or rude anti Semitism or racism(as defined by the left), whereas the Occidentals cause me to cringe a little sometimes.
I wondered the same thing. They even found quotes from Kevin on Breivik. The whole thing is so dumb and slipshod though, that this should not surprise us.
I think you are very generous in removing the name of the police officer concerned, I would have had no hesitation in exposing the wire pullers no matter have small they are.
PST is not a politically neutral organization. The letter is addressed to UDI, it contains arguments for deporting Greg Johnson, to be used by UDI as legal foundation for the deportation, but that is not to say that these arguments reflect PST’s own motivation. PST’s mission is to prevent political radicalization.
The most interesting thing about the letter is the referred phone call. This is very typical in Norway. When you send a formal request, you first call the recipient of the letter and discuss the case. The other party then explain what information you need to pass down in the letter for the formal decision to be made.
>prevent political radicalization
>work with Antifa
Europe is doomed.
And so is America.
Charlie Kirk would accuse me of being a “cynic” I suppose. Oh well.
Have the Norwegian journalists who’d originally sought the PST’s letter been sent a link to this article, so they don’t miss it? I can’t imagine they haven’t been.
PST refusing your right to speak has revealed to many Norwegians that free speech is an illusion. This revelation will make people MORE “extreme”, not less.
I’m not sure how this shows that free speech is an illusion. I would say first: people do not need a right to have an opinion, to speak their mind, to criticize. Imagine if I told you: “I grant you the freedom to speak, criticize, have an opinion about what I say.” Pretty presumptuous; I thereby claim authority over you, that I am making your ability to formulate and express your opinion dependent on my permission.
That is precisely what the state does: It makes the exercise of the most basic, self-evident, and automatic activities contingent on its permission. This is a far-reaching and comprehensive act of domination, even without forbidding any individual opinion. The state declares itself the guarantor of their freedom – thus making its own authority the condition for the exercise of that freedom.
The primary condition consists in this: You must recognize that it is just your opinion. Not binding for the exercise of state authority. (Examples: protest – think of the permission and conditions). What good is the freedom to have an opinion if it is inconsequential? As if the whole point of speaking, thinking, and criticizing was to be allowed to do so!
Conceptually: When the state grants the freedom of opinion to its citizens, it divorces the act of having or expressing an opinion from the whole point of having/expressing that opinion, which is to see that opinion realized in reality. Therefore, that is the way the state frees itself from any demands that follow from those opinions. The price for the freedom to express your opinion is fundamental respect for and consent to the authority of the state that grants that freedom. So, isn’t it odd that the ideal of the freedom of speech has become a democratic fundamentalism that can’t be questioned? One is just expected to accept the ideal as the most praiseworthy thing in the world.
By the way, that is not the opposite of freedom, or a particularly clever way of suppressing opinion. Rather, the state grants this freedom, declares itself the authority that guarantees that freedom, thus making itself the condition for the exercise of that freedom. It installs a kind of free space in which it can be practiced, but frees itself from any binding demands.
Another point: tolerance is the ideal of political power, directed against all citizens, who each want this force directed against everyone else. In the well-guarded spheres of public opinion the state sees to it that diversity of opinion prevails. What is considered acceptable opinion — the boundaries of what can be spoken — is determined ahead of time. Genuine polemics has died out, being only feigned in debates over who is the better democrat, etc. However, in the spheres where the state is not immediately present, people quickly realize that their differences are not merely ones of opinion. In the intimacy of their family or favorite tavern the voicing of an interest is still cause for a fistfight. That illustrates exactly what the state codifies with its freedom of speech, namely the prohibition to treat opposing interests in any way other than as differing points of view. Opinions must be allowed to be voiced so that they remain opinions. This is all freedom of speech is. And since there is always the danger of citizens taking seriously opinions criticizing the state, and drawing practical consequences from them, every democratic state puts limits on the freedom of speech and press. This is not proof that the freedom of speech is an illusion, but a practical necessity of the state granting that right. When it sees fit, a democracy does not hesitate to equate an opinion with a real intent. In all these cases, of course, democrats complain that this threatens the submissiveness of citizens, which also gives away the whole secret of democratic public opinion.
Yeah this is totalitarian, and yeah this is a war.
The other side knows that to win it must merely prevent us from communicating – so they do that. Smart!
What we need to do in America is make the case for splitting the country up (which only few of us are doing).
Noticed how many of Trumps folks were convicted of phony political crimes? (Trump is next on the blotter…). Why would any of us expect better? The magnanimity of the other side?! Ha! Many of them are literal demon worshippers, the rest nihilists.
I’m glad this is being followed up. Those who operate in the dark should have the light shone on their behavior and activities. I look forward to further developments.
In a world where now words/ideas=violence in the minds of the Left, this is to be expected.
You have joined the ranks of many other notable persons who have been and are being politically persecuted for your thoughts, speech, and writings.
Wear the mantle with honor and distinction. You are clearly worrying the powers that be, which is a good thing.
On related note, another news from swedish Absurdistan.
‘Operation Snowflake’ causes uproar as Swedish police invite gang leaders for pizza & cosy chat after shootings & bombing
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/473446-sweden-police-gangs-pizza/
One more example of the peaceful uncontrolled immigration in Europe.
Denmark: Shootings, Car Torchings, & Gang Violence
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/denmark-shootings-car-torchings-gang-violence
To be in Norway it is ok to hate Norwegians but you absolutely must not dislike Jews in any way or you will be deported.
It isn’t exactly true that you’re “against right-wing terrorism”. Your argument against it is essentially that it is not pragmatic. You merely a call to postpone any violence until you think the fight is winnable, or until you think legality is on your side. Of course, you tack in all the caveats: “we must use peaceful methods, etc.” It’s not against the concept of political terrorism as such, but only that you think it could have negative consequences for the white nationalist movement if the timing and popular support for it are off. In other words, it’s a conditional argument, and if the conditions change, then your assessment would also change. Or is your argument something else?