The Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM) is a militant National Socialist organization that in principle embraces violent strategies, including terrorism, given the “right” circumstances. However, in practice, the organization restrains its use of violence considerably. To understand why, this article examines three interrelated topics. First, when and why does the NRM leadership permit its members to use violence? Second, why and how does the current NRM leadership restrain the organization’s use of violence? Third, how does the NRM leadership respond to cases where NRM members carry out acts of severe violence that clearly overstep the boundaries set by their leaders? Our main finding is that the NRM leadership does not – at least in principle – have any moral restraints against political violence, including mass murder, and that the main reason why the NRMrefrains from using terrorist methods is strategic calculation: such methods are perceived as counter-productive and likely to undermine the NRM’s prospects of gaining popular support and opportunities to propagate its political views via public and legal channels. As such, the NRM leaders are highly sensitive to the legal boundaries set by the government. However, they also continuously try to test and expand these boundaries through violent behaviour against the police and political enemies, and by honouring rather than punishing activists who overstep the limits officially drawn by the leadership.
The Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM) is a militant National Socialist organization that in principle embraces violent strategies, including terrorism, given the “right” circumstances. However, in practice, the organization restrains its use of violence considerably. To understand why, this article examines three interrelated topics. First, when and why does the NRM leadership permit its members to use violence? Second, why and how does the current NRM leadership restrain the organization’s use of violence? Third, how does the NRM leadership respond to cases where NRM members carry out acts of severe violence that clearly overstep the boundaries set by their leaders? Our main finding is that the NRM leadership does not – at least in principle – have any moral restraints against political violence, including mass murder, and that the main reason why the NRMrefrains from using terrorist methods is strategic calculation: such methods are perceived as counter-productive and likely to undermine the NRM’s prospects of gaining popular support and opportunities to propagate its political views via public and legal channels. As such, the NRM leaders are highly sensitive to the legal boundaries set by the government. However, they also continuously try to test and expand these boundaries through violent behaviour against the police and political enemies, and by honouring rather than punishing activists who overstep the limits officially drawn by the leadership.
