RESISTANCE MOVEMENT. National Council member Fredrik Vejdeland explains the differences between dropouts and traitors – with illustrative examples. He also gives instructions to the national movement on how to deal with the latter.
In the latest episode of Leadership Perspective, Simon Lindberg and I spoke about defection and betrayal, after Jimmy Thunlind became a police informant and a traitor. This issue was explained further in this article. The subject has since been remarked upon by various nationalists, who have by and large all worked to smoke out this traitor. This is something we both thank and honour them for.
The purpose of this article is to examine what separates a dropout from a traitor, and to give examples of when leaving the Organisation crosses the line into betrayal. When do the dropout’s transgressions become so bad that he not only makes any future position impossible in his own organisation, but also in the national movement as a whole?
Firstly, it should be pointed out that we are very careful when it comes to labelling someone a traitor, and we never do it without solid evidence for the claim. Even if one disapproves of a dropout’s gossiping to other nationalists, he should be careful about calling him something as disparaging as a traitor.
This is the case for several reasons. We do not want to be in a situation in which the concept is inflated and we cannot differentiate the big fish from the small. Throwing out accusations that are not properly thought out, or are said in the heat of the moment, can lead to reduced credibility and other problems for us. We risk inviting anger upon ourselves – which may well be justified – and creating enemies for life.
In this context it should also be clarified, if it were not already apparent, that a dropout does not necessarily qualify as a traitor at all – in fact, it is extremely rare. The Nordic Resistance Movement is a volunteer organisation, through which many have come and gone over the years. Of course, this is something that happens in all other organisations – political and non-political – but perhaps more so in a revolutionary organisation that is subjected to strong external pressure from a repressive system. There have been members who have left after a few weeks or months, after realising the level of repression that comes their way (which we always warn them about beforehand). Conversely, others last for many years.
This is completely natural, and because their places are always filled with new people, I see no major problem with it. Ultimately, it is the collective units – the Organisation that wages the struggle, and the people we fight for – that are important. As long as the struggle for the survival of our people continues, it doesn’t matter if a few individuals come or go. That might sound cynical, but it’s the reality.
The important thing is that the inner core gradually grows and becomes stronger. The inner core comprises the fighters who have shown loyalty through years of trials and have become part of the Organisation’s vital infrastructure. This core has grown and become stronger over time, but it can also be decimated now and then after a split. During the coup attempt in the Organisation in 2019, some people disappeared from this core, but regardless of what they believe, not that many left the core itself, and today their places are filled by others. In other words, we have gone from being in a rebuilding phase to being in a building phase again.
When someone leaves
When people leave the Organisation, they usually do so as men; that is, in silence and without blaming someone else – and without listing thousands of examples why the Nordic Resistance Movement is so terrible (which they never voiced when they were with us). Quietly and peacefully they go into the Svensson life, for that is unfortunately where almost all of them end up, despite fine words from some about what they will do now that the Organisation no longer hinders them.
So when someone leaves the Organisation, even though it can be sad when it’s someone good, I usually focus on what the individual achieved during his or her time in the Nordic Resistance Movement. How has he or she, through hard work over a period of time, helped the Organisation move forwards? If the person left in the right way, he has points in his favour, and can potentially rejoin at a later occasion, if he so chooses.
It is very important to understand that we don’t go around beating up people who leave the Organisation. This is just as untrue as the system-media’s claim that we beat up people who “refuse to take a leaflet”. What they often “forget” to mention is that those who do not want to take a leaflet sometimes attack an activist physically or psychologically (e.g., by spitting at them), and this leads to their being reprimanded. The reaction to the dropout may change if they act in a way similar to the spitting leaflet-refuser. If the dropout crosses the line and uses his previous insight into the Organisation to conduct a smear campaign against the Organisation and his former comrades, he should not be surprised if people become angry and sometimes physical.
It is important to note that even the people described above are not always regarded as traitors, according to our own restrained criteria. They should instead be regarded as ill-disposed quitters. When we talk about traitors, we mean those who have been bought by the system; those who go on morning TV shows and lie about our activities.
People like Jimmy Thunlind are extremely few and far between. However, a similar example is Henrik Holappa and his betrayal in 2016. Holappa appeared in newspapers and on TV, where he demonised the organisation, cooperated with left-wing extremists and wrote a book containing outright lies. What unites Thunlind and Holappa, apart from the flagrant lying, is that they both had insight into the Organisation, even though it was primarily in their respective regions (Nest 8 in Sweden, in Thunlind’s case; and Finland, in Holappa’s).
In between, there has been a Hugo Edlund or two, whose treason has been just as serious, but whose insight into the Organisation’s internal activities has been severely limited.
Traitors are usually used by the system for a limited time. Once they have gotten their five minutes of fame, they tend to be discarded just as quickly – not infrequently because they prove to be complete failures. Anders Högström made it impossible to be a “star defector” when he committed various bizarre thefts. Hugo Edlund started using cocaine, which led to his begging for 700 kronor from the system-media in return for some inside gossip. Henrik Holappa could have been a traitor megastar, but he is not exactly the most interesting person to listen to. I have never had a sensible conversation with that milksop. As for Kim Fredriksson, one might have thought he blew his chances for good when he tortured his partner and threatened to kill her two-year-old daughter, but he still shows up on TV now and then and collaborates with Antifascist Action (AFA).
In contrast to the people mentioned above, Jimmy Thunlind is someone the system will want to hold on to for the foreseeable future. I can easily see him sprawling out on a TV4 sofa. Thunlind is skilled at theatrics, and if he can just refrain from drinking, I believe he will hold lucrative lectures at schools and other such venues for a long time to come.
When dropping out turns into treason
With all this said, the only relevant question left is: What qualifies as treason? What in the dropout’s behaviour and actions is it that means NO ONE should have anything to do with him? Below are some examples.
Providing the police and Säpo [the Security Police] with information about former comrades and a former organisation. Both Jimmy Thunlind and Hugo Edlund have done this, according to their own statements. One should remember that the Security Police (which is directly subordinate to the government) and the Police Authorities serve the system, not the citizens or society at large. You are not doing your “social duty”, as Thunlind claims he is doing, when you relay information about the national opposition.
Providing Antifascist Action with information about former comrades and a former organisation. AFA is also part of the system, and their goal is to personally harm nationalists.
Appearing on TV shows and taking the system’s side against the national struggle. By doing this, one becomes part of the propaganda that demonises those fighting against the population replacement and the destruction of our people.
Providing the system with information about why the movement is criminal. Jimmy Thunlind claims that we issued directives to obtain hand grenades and assault rifles, as well as to blow up media buildings. Even though Thunlind’s information is false and cannot be proven, this will become a living truth within the system and will be used as a means to try to further combat the national opposition. Regardless of whether Thunlind’s claims are true or not, he sides with the system in its belief that it should be the only institution permitted to use violence in society.
What the national movement must do
As mentioned in the introduction, several nationalists have acted exceptionally in Thunlind’s case. The AFA informant Pavel Gamov has also recently been smoked out. This is how we must act! Strongly and resolutely – and united!
When treason is discovered, one should take a stand against the traitor, but never, under any circumstances, should the traitor’s side be taken against the organisation in question. It does not matter how much one dislikes an organisation or its representatives; he must never engage in schadenfreude when they are blighted by a traitor. One must go to their defence, or, at the absolute least, avoid the matter entirely.
Since his betrayal, the narcissistic Thunlind has attempted to talk about his “ideological journey” on the podcast Vita pillret (The White Pill) and has contacted his former comrades (who he just sold out to the system) in an attempt to try to find a way back into the community in some way. The door has been shut everywhere.
This resolute action is ultimately the only right and effective approach, as it sends an important signal to dropouts who might consider stepping over the line in the future.