RESISTANCE MOVEMENT. After a long wait, a response to the Nordic Resistance Movement’s request for a debate with Alternative for Sweden was finally received. The arrogant reply is published here in its entirety, together with a response from Simon Lindberg.
On 25 July, the Nordic Resistance Movement sent an official request to the Alternative for Sweden (AfS) party to partake in a debate with us. We considered this to be both very important and highly reasonable in order to gain clarity as to whether AfS really constitutes a true alternative for Swedish nationalists; or if they are just another Sweden Democrats with a new name, and thus incapable of ever being able to achieve anything of value for our nation – other than possibly, at best, slowing down the decline somewhat, without a hope of stopping it.
We therefore wished to debate immigration and repatriation, and – if AfS were to decide – the degree to which this would be based on ethnic grounds and a real interest in protecting Sweden and the Swedes, or if AfS instead support “open Swedishness” and believe that immigration and repatriation are exclusively matters relating to integration.
We wanted to discuss Jewish influence over the West and the rest of the world, as well as its role in the population replacement, if AfS acknowledge this and intend to do something about it, or – in a worst case scenario – if they actually attempt to hide it and thus defend the Jewish globalists.
Finally, we wanted to discuss reformism versus revolution, to determine whether AfS really intend to create a better nation, or if they are content with just trying to correct the sick society we live in today, in addition to whether they actually intend to gain power in Sweden and, if so, how this would be achieved.
All of these questions are crucial in determining whether or not AfS are a party worthy of a Swedish nationalist’s vote and support. If they regard themselves as such and have nothing to hide, they should naturally be happy to have the chance to explain this once and for all by taking part in a debate with us and, in so doing, winning our respect and that of many other true nationalists – which, for most serious organisations that claim to be nationalist, should far outweigh a few potential lost votes from some anti-racist liberal boomers.
Furthermore, we are convinced that many people would have been interested in watching this debate and that it would have created a lot of interest for both parties.
For a long time there was no answer to our invitation. We thought AfS had ignored us, just as they have tried to do since their formation, by brazenly claiming they are the only party that advocates repatriation, even though the Nordic Resistance Movement has advocated it for many years before AfS even came into existence.
On 12 August, almost three weeks after we received confirmation that AfS had read our invitation, a reply was sent from AfS party leader Gustav Kasselstrand to the Resistance Movement’s official email address. To avoid misunderstandings, and because I find it the most honourable thing to do, I am publishing the answer in its entirety below before officially responding to it.
Hi!
It is clear that the NRM as a political party and parliamentary venture exists only on paper. Your parliamentary list consists of four names, and your election campaign for the Riksdag is non-existent. Yet you expect others, in this case AfS, to give you a leg-up by taking part in a debate. Both you and we know that this is just a cheap attempt to get free PR.
Every party must stand on its own two feet, instead of getting a free ride off the hard and long-standing work of others. Yet the latter is exactly what you want to do now. It can hardly be my task, or that of the rest of AfS, to elevate other movements that are not prepared to put in the work required to operate a new party.
Last weekend your strategy became clear when you stood with a banner at our event in Stockholm. Why do behave like that? Would you consider it honourable behaviour if you planned an event for months, with speakers, foreign guests and musicians, as well as officials who worked very hard to make sure everything went smoothly – and then people who did not lift a finger to arrange the event showed up to promote their own organisation by standing with a banner near your stage? That is weak and douchey, and on the same low level as the Left’s counter-demonstrations.
By the way, I will decline a debate with all movements – regardless of political orientation – that just want to get a free ride off AfS’s name and successes. And by the same token, I welcome a debate with any party that demonstrates that they stand on their own two feet and constitute a real parliamentary alternative.
The fact that I decline a debate does not mean I decline a conversation. For example, I have not had a debate with Fritjof Persson either, but I have of course spoken to him when he came to our meetings.
Today is the start of our repatriation tour, and anyone is free to come to talk to me or ask me questions. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. So maybe we’ll see each other – it’s up to you – perhaps even today in Borlänge? But please leave out the banners and counter-demonstrations; it’s not good behaviour.
Regards,
Gustav Kasselstrand
For the sake of simplicity, I will respond to three things from Kasselstrand’s answer paragraph by paragraph, first by quoting what he writes and then responding.
It is clear that the NRM as a political party and parliamentary venture exists only on paper. Your parliamentary list consists of four names, and your election campaign for the Riksdag is non-existent.
According to Kasselstrand, the number of representatives on your parliamentary list determines whether you are a serious political party or not. Maybe he just thinks the more, the better. According to this reasoning, parties like the Centre Party, the Sweden Democrats and the Green Party are more serious than AfS because they have more candidates on their lists.
I see it another way. Of course, both we and AfS understand there is a 100% likelihood of neither of us getting into the Riksdag in this election. You can either be honest about this fact, as we are, and therefore not put a lot of names on your list just for the sake of appearance, or you can do the opposite. Which of these is the most serious is up to the reader to decide. In any case, it is clear which is the most honourable.
The idea that our election campaign is non-existent is a completely ridiculous and false claim. Regardless of whether we go back and count from the last election in September 2018; or from March 2022, when AfS kicked off their election campaign; or from 1 May 2022, when the Nordic Resistance Movement began its election campaign, I can guarantee that our level of activity was significantly higher than Alternative for Sweden’s, regardless of whether we view it in terms of quality or quantity. AfS have maintained an impressive level of activity lately, for which their members are deserving of praise, but that does not prevent my comparison from being considerably more accurate than Kasselstrand’s scathing criticism of our activities. Anyone who does not believe me can take a look at just a selection of the well over one thousand activities we held this year alone by reading these monthly reports [Swedish]:
- The month with the Resistance Movement – July
- The month with the Resistance Movement – June
- The month with the Resistance Movement – May
- The month with the Resistance Movement – April
Every party must stand on its own two feet, instead of getting a free ride off the hard and long-standing work of others. Yet the latter is exactly what you want to do now. It can hardly be my task, or that of the rest of AfS, to elevate other movements that are not prepared to put in the work required to operate a new party.
The Nordic Resistance Movement has been active since 1997 and in all probability is one of the most hard-working political organisations – and one of those that has faced the most adversity – ever since its formation. The fact that a party which has not even existed for five years calls its work hard and long-standing (in contrast to the Resistance Movement’s) would be laughable if it were not so serious.
I have no doubt that many AfS activists work hard to advance their party, particularly now at election time, but the total amount of work that has been put into AfS can hardly be called hard or long-lasting when compared to that of the Nordic Resistance Movement.
And as for “getting a free ride” off the work of other parties, could this exact same claim not be levelled at AfS for what they are trying to do in relation to the Sweden Democrats?
Last weekend your strategy became clear when you stood with a banner at our event in Stockholm. Why do behave like that?
As long as AfS do not prove themselves to be a serious alternative for Swedish nationalists – which they potentially could have done via a debate with us – they can count on real representatives for Swedish nationalists showing up at their meetings, just as we also do at public meetings organised by the Social Democrats or Sweden Democrats. The Nordic Resistance Movement act in accordance with the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression and exercise our right to free opinion-forming.
He also “forgets” to mention two very interesting circumstances relating to that event in Stockholm. The first is that we only heard of two people who expressed their disapproval of the Nordic Resistance Movement’s presence throughout the day, while there were many more, including at least one organiser, who said they were very happy and felt safe when our activists were present. His opinions about our presence therefore do not seem to be shared by AfS’s supporters, and perhaps even by their members.
The second is that Nordic Resistance Movement activists chased anti-fascists away from the scene before the election meeting and cleaned the area of their anti-AfS propaganda. A somewhat more grateful tone would have been more fitting, considering how these men risked their well-being and freedom through their actions for AfS’s benefit.
No answers to the questions
Finally, it is also highly relevant to point out that Kasselstrand completely omits even the slightest hint of any answers to the questions we wanted AfS to answer. We must therefore suspect the worst: that AfS may not be particularly concerned about the ethnic Swedish people when they talk about immigration and repatriation, that AfS protect the Jewish power elite, and that AfS have no plans or ambitions of really changing this nation for the better, but instead just want to reform the old Cultural Marxist flophouse that Sweden is today.
At any rate, according to this non-answer, it cannot be ruled out that AfS is not – and does not intend to be – a real alternative for Swedish nationalists who want to safeguard the interests of ethnic Swedes. This doubt will likely weigh rather heavily on all level-headed observers, at least until AfS succeeds in proving the opposite.
If I were to use Kasselstrand’s vocabulary, it might be appropriate to describe his whole answer as rather “douchey”, but as that is not a word I think I have ever used in my entire life, and which I cannot find a definition of in the dictionary, I will refrain from doing so, in case I use it incorrectly.
However, what I am absolutely sure about is that if you are a defender of Sweden and the Swedes – the real Swedes of flesh and blood – and want representatives who are not afraid of confrontation with any forces to protect this nation, then there appears to be only one alternative in the autumn elections – and, moreover, in the ongoing struggle after election day – and our name is the Nordic Resistance Movement!
