RESISTANCE MOVEMENT. Simon Lindberg responds to the ongoing efforts to classify the Nordic Resistance Movement as a terrorist group and the upcoming constitutional amendment on freedom of association in Sweden.
The question posed in the title of this article likely seems completely absurd to practically every regular reader of this website. The organisation celebrated its 25th anniversary in spring, and throughout all that time it has not committed a single act of terrorism, or even anything close.
Despite this, and despite the fact that the Nordic Resistance Movement has clearly stated several times over the years that we are a civil and legal resistance movement that only uses violence in self-defence, this issue still looms large.
After our activists conducted an activity at the Gävle Goat inauguration on Advent Sunday, an editorial appeared in the Social Democrat Bonnier rag Arbetarbladet containing numerous crazy lies, which we responded to, such as:
It is easy to overlook, because Gävle is a small town and the Gävle Goat inauguration is a cosy festival, but unfortunately it is exactly this type of gathering that serves as a golden opportunity for those looking to commit a terrorist attack.
This means that the Nordic Resistance Movement’s presence at an event like the Gävle Goat inauguration must be taken very seriously by the police.
On 30 November, I and some other activists participated in the Karl XII memorial in Stockholm. Extreme-left photographers were there to harass the participants, so we confronted them verbally.
This led to headlines in several media outlets about “journalists being attacked”, alongside a quote from Säpo, which read: “The Resistance Movement is classified as an organisation with a high capacity for violence that has the ability to commit acts that could be classified as terrorist offences.”
A couple of days later, the former responsible publisher for motståndsrörelsen.se was charged with incitement to racial hatred. During the trial, the prosecutor called Säpo’s chief analyst Ahn-Za Hagström as a witness. Hagström committed perjury by stating under oath that the Resistance Movement employs rhetoric that advocates violence, has a military appearance and uses its potential for violence to intimidate enemies and opponents into silence, as well as claiming that several people connected to the organisation have been convicted of serious violent crimes. Most notably, she said we inspire lone terrorists to act.
The fact that all these insinuations of terrorism from both the media and security police are coming right now is hardly a coincidence, and we will most likely see much more of the same in future. This is not on account of Theodor Engström, who, despite the media’s initial zeal, clearly had nothing to do with the Resistance Movement.
Rather, it is due to the constitutional amendment the government voted through on 16 November, which will come into force on 1 January 2023. It states that freedom of association can be restricted for “associations that engage in or support terrorism” and that it will therefore be possible for such organisations to be outlawed.
The regime has tried to ban the Nordic Resistance Movement – a registered political party – on several previous occasions, but has failed on account of the constitution. It is very likely that new attempts will be made due to the constitutional amendment, and the media and the security police are already setting the stage.
According to the Terrorist Offences Act (2022:666) § 3, the definition of terrorism or a terrorist crime is:
… committing or attempting to commit a deliberate crime in which:
1. the act could seriously damage a country or an intergovernmental organisation, and
2. the act is committed with the intention to
a) seriously intimidate a population or part of a population;
b) unduly compel a public body or an intergovernmental organisation to take, or refrain from taking, an action, or
c) seriously destabilise or destroy fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or of an intergovernmental organisation.
As I have said, it is obvious to me that the Nordic Resistance Movement has never even been close to committing a crime that could live up to this definition.
Do we have, as Säpo puts it, the ability to commit such an act? Well, in all honesty, yes we do, but for that matter so do the Social Democrats, Säpo themselves and no doubt even local football clubs and most other associations in Sweden.
In spite of this, the terminology that defines a terrorist crime is still rather vague, which will naturally be exploited by anti-Swedish careerist prosecutors to appease the world rulers and be used in an attempt to ban us. Particularly because the new constitutional amendment also states that it is sufficient to “support terrorism” in order to be proscribed. If this is taken to its extreme and the new law is interpreted very freely, essentially any organisation in the country that is critical of the system could be banned on account of it.
The media, analysts and other “experts” do their part by attempting to legitimise a possible ban with exaggerations and sometimes outright lies. If you were someone who was marinated in propaganda claiming that we attack journalists, that the public were lucky to avoid a terrorist attack in Gävle, that we inspire lone terrorists to act and that we have the capacity to commit terrorist crimes and so on, there is probably a good chance you wouldn’t even shrug your shoulders when a registered political party that stands for elections is dissolved and banned in Sweden for the first time in history because it has been classed as a terrorist group.
The Nordic Resistance Movement are not terrorists. As I said, we are a civil and legal resistance movement. We stand in opposition to the anti-White regime that is destroying our nation with mass immigration and Cultural Marxism. We are the true defence movement for the survival of our people.
We assume this role with great responsibility and we will naturally therefore never give up the fight – ban or no ban. As for which approaches we will adopt if we are no longer permitted to work civilly or legally – that remains to be seen by those who want to ban us…