The Normalization of Fascism in Contemporary Sweden: A Case Study of The Sweden Democrats and Their Coalition Partners

Abstract

This case study examines the rise and normalization of far-right politics in Sweden, focusing on the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna, SD) and their influence on mainstream political discourse. Through analysis of historical patterns, rhetorical strategies, and key political figures, this study argues that Sweden is experiencing a dangerous normalization of fascistic ideology under the guise of democratic respectability. The study demonstrates how crypto-fascist movements adapt historical fascist logic to contemporary contexts, making them potentially more dangerous than their historical predecessors due to reduced public resistance and mainstream legitimization. This analysis employs a radical framework that recognizes how even “moderate” policy debates serve to normalize exclusionary politics and shift focus from systemic solutions to scapegoating vulnerable populations.

Preface: The Myth of Swedish Exceptionalism

Sweden’s International Image: Liberal Paradise or European Norm?

Sweden has long occupied a particular place in the international imagination, especially in Anglo-American discourse. For decades, it has been portrayed as a model social democracy — even branded as “socialist” by American conservatives seeking to discredit progressive policies. This image encompasses:

Comprehensive welfare state and social safety net
Progressive social policies on gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights
Environmental leadership and sustainability initiatives
Peaceful internationalism and humanitarian aid
High taxation funding robust public services
“The Swedish Model” of labor-capital cooperation

Bernie Sanders invokes Sweden; American conservatives warn against becoming Sweden; international media presents Sweden as proof that “socialism works” (or doesn’t, depending on perspective). The country has become a symbol — a projection screen for debates about political economy elsewhere.

The Reality: Sweden as Part of European Political Development

This exceptionalist narrative obscures a more mundane reality: Sweden’s political development largely mirrors broader European patterns, including the contemporary rise of far-right politics.

Sweden’s mid-20th century social democracy was remarkable but not unique:

Similar welfare states developed across Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark, Finland)
Post-war social democratic consensus existed throughout Western Europe
Germany, Austria, Netherlands, and others built comprehensive welfare systems
The “Swedish Model” was part of broader European social democratic governance

What distinguished Sweden was perhaps degree and consistency rather than fundamental difference. And critically, this system was social democratic, not socialist — it maintained capitalism while redistributing its proceeds through state intervention.

Neoliberal Turn (1980s-2000s)

Sweden’s neoliberal transformation also followed European patterns:

Privatization: Beginning in the 1990s, Sweden privatized or marketized:

Healthcare (private providers within public system)
Education (free schools/charter schools, friskolor)
Elderly care
Public transportation
Postal services
Telecommunications

Welfare retrenchment: Cuts to unemployment insurance, sick leave, pensions — the welfare state remained but contracted.

Tax cuts: Especially benefiting wealthy and corporations, reducing redistributive capacity.

Labor market deregulation: Weakening of employment protections and union power.

This mirrored Thatcherism in UK, Reaganomics in US, and neoliberal reforms across Europe. Sweden was not immune but participant in the broader neoliberal restructuring of capitalism.

The Rise of the Far-Right (2000s-Present)

Sweden’s contemporary far-right normalization is not exceptional but typical of European political development:

Parallel movements across Europe:

Denmark: Danish People’s Party normalized since 1990s
Norway: Progress Party (FrP) influential since 1980s
Finland: Finns Party (formerly True Finns) in government
Netherlands: Party for Freedom (PVV) under Wilders
France: National Rally (RN) under Le Pen
Italy: Brothers of Italy (FdI) under Meloni now governing
Germany: Alternative for Germany (AfD) growing
Austria: Freedom Party (FPÖ) repeatedly in government
Hungary: Fidesz creating “illiberal democracy”
Poland: Law and Justice (PiS) recently in power

Common patterns:

Anti-immigration and particularly anti-Muslim rhetoric
Framing as defenders of national identity and “Western values”
Welfare chauvinism (welfare for “us”, not “them”)
Law and order politics
Euroscepticism (varying degrees)
Initial marginalization followed by normalization
Coalition formation with mainstream conservatives
Mainstreaming of once-extreme positions

Sweden’s timeline matches European pattern:

1990s-2000s: Far-right remains marginal (like most of Europe)
2010s: Breakthrough and growth (like most of Europe)
2020s: Normalized and influential (like most of Europe)

If anything, Sweden was slower than Denmark or Austria to normalize far-right politics, not faster or more extreme.

The Structural Causes Are European (and Global)

The conditions enabling far-right growth are not Swedish-specific:

Neoliberal economic restructuring: Across Europe, neoliberal policies created:

Economic insecurity and precarity
Weakened labor movements
Increased inequality
Erosion of social solidarity
Privatization of public goods

Migration and refugee flows: European-wide phenomena:

Post-colonial migration
EU freedom of movement
Refugee crises (Yugoslavia 1990s, Syria/Afghanistan 2010s)
Economic migration from global South
Climate displacement (increasing)

Cultural and demographic change:

Secularization and declining traditional institutions
Changing gender roles and family structures
Increasing diversity
Generational shifts

Political alienation:

Declining trust in mainstream parties
Perceived convergence of center-left and center-right
Technocratic EU governance perceived as undemocratic
Corruption scandals and elite disconnect

Information environment:

Social media amplification of extreme content
Echo chambers and filter bubbles
Misinformation and propaganda
Algorithmic radicalization

These are European and global patterns, not Swedish peculiarities.

Why the Exceptionalism Myth Matters

The myth of Swedish exceptionalism — whether positive (progressive paradise) or negative (socialist dystopia) — obscures the structural analysis necessary to understand what’s happening:

It treats symptoms as aberrations: “How could this happen in Sweden?” suggests this is surprising rather than predictable given European-wide conditions.

It prevents learning from European experience: Sweden is not pioneering new territory but following well-worn paths. We can learn from how other countries have (or haven’t) resisted far-right normalization.

It individualizes structural problems: Focusing on Swedish-specific factors (immigration policy, integration approaches, etc.) distracts from capitalist crisis, neoliberal restructuring, and imperial blowback that affect all of Europe.

It serves ideological purposes elsewhere: American debates use “Sweden” as symbol rather than understanding actual Swedish conditions, making it harder to analyze either context accurately.

It suggests solutions might be national: But the problems are structural and transnational, requiring international solidarity and systemic change, not national policy tweaks.

Sweden in European Context: The Argument of This Study

This case study examines Sweden not as exceptional but as illustrative of broader European patterns of fascist normalization. The Sweden Democrats and their coalition partners demonstrate how:

Far-right movements adapt to different national contexts while maintaining core fascistic logic
Neoliberal capitalism creates conditions for fascist growth
Liberal democratic institutions fail to prevent fascist normalization
Mainstream conservatives collaborate with and adopt far-right positions
Each country’s far-right has specific characteristics (SD’s neo-Nazi roots, focus on Islam, etc.) but shares structural similarities with European counterparts

Sweden is not uniquely threatened by fascism — Europe is. And Europe’s fascist resurgence is not aberration but capitalism’s predictable response to its own crisis, redirecting legitimate grievances about exploitation and insecurity toward scapegoated minorities rather than systemic transformation.

Understanding Sweden requires understanding Europe. Understanding Europe requires understanding capitalism. And understanding capitalism requires recognizing that fascism is not its opposite but its defender — the iron fist that emerges when the velvet glove of liberal democracy no longer suffices to maintain ruling class power.

This study examines Sweden, but the analysis applies across borders. The resistance must be equally transnational.

1. Introduction: The Problem of Recognition

The challenge in identifying contemporary fascism lies not in the absence of warning signs, but in our collective failure to recognize fascism when it does not perfectly mirror its historical manifestations. As Eco (1995) argued in “Ur-Fascism”, fascism is not a monolithic ideology but rather a collection of features that can manifest in different combinations and contexts¹. The Sweden Democrats and their increasingly normalized position in Swedish politics present a critical case study in how fascistic movements gain power through democratic means while maintaining plausible deniability about their true nature.

1.1 Methodological Approach

This study employs a structural analysis of fascism, examining not surface-level aesthetics but underlying ideological patterns, historical continuities, and tactical strategies. Rather than requiring exact replication of 1930s-1940s fascism, we identify the core logic that defines fascist movements:

Ultranationalism and ethnic/cultural supremacy
Identification of outgroups as existential threats
Dehumanizing rhetoric toward minorities
Authoritarian tendencies and hostility toward democratic norms
Strategic use of democratic systems to gain power
Alliance with capitalist interests while suppressing labor
Normalization through incremental radicalization

This analysis adopts a radical perspective that recognizes how liberal democratic frameworks often enable fascist normalization by treating fundamentally violent ideologies as legitimate positions in political debate. The “marketplace of ideas” approach fails when some “ideas” are actually calls for ethnic cleansing dressed in policy language.

2. Historical Context: From Neo-Nazi Margins to Parliamentary Power

2.1 Origins in Extremism

The Sweden Democrats were founded in 1988 with direct connections to Sweden’s neo-Nazi and white supremacist movements. Early members included individuals from explicitly fascist organizations such as Bevara Sverige Svenskt (Keep Sweden Swedish) and Nordiska rikspartiet (Nordic Reich Party)². This historical foundation is well-documented and undisputed, even by the party itself, though they frame it as a regrettable past they have overcome.

2.2 The “Moderation” Strategy

Under Jimmie Åkesson’s leadership from 2005 onward, SD embarked on a systematic rebranding campaign modeled after the Danish People’s Party’s successful mainstreaming strategy. This included:

Expelling the most visibly extreme members
Adopting suits instead of boots
Focusing rhetoric on “immigration criticism” rather than explicit racism
Emphasizing “law and order” and “Swedish values”
Presenting themselves as defenders of democracy and welfare

However, as this study will demonstrate, this moderation was primarily aesthetic and tactical rather than ideological.

2.3 Electoral Success and Normalization

SD’s electoral trajectory demonstrates their successful normalization:

2010: 5.7% (entering parliament for the first time)
2014: 12.9%
2018: 17.5%
2022: 20.5% (second-largest party)

By 2022, SD had become essential to forming a right-wing government, giving them unprecedented influence over Swedish policy despite not holding ministerial positions directly³.

3. The Fascism Question: Analytical Framework

3.1 Why “Fascist” Rather Than “Populist” or “Nationalist”?

Political scientists often prefer terms like “radical right populist” or “far-right” to describe parties like SD. While these terms are not inaccurate, they may obscure the specific dangers posed by movements with fascistic characteristics. The reluctance to use “fascist” often stems from:

Academic caution: Desire to avoid seeming politically biased
Historical literalism: Expecting fascism to look exactly like 1930s-1940s movements
Democratic participation: The fact that these parties operate within democratic systems
Economic differences: Modern far-right parties don’t always match classical fascist economic models

However, these objections may represent a failure to recognize how fascism adapts to different historical contexts. More fundamentally, they reflect liberal democratic frameworks that prioritize procedural legitimacy over substantive justice — treating parties advocating ethnic cleansing as legitimate participants in democratic discourse simply because they follow electoral procedures.

3.2 Fascism and Capitalism: Dispelling a Myth

A common misconception holds that fascism is incompatible with capitalism or free markets. Historical evidence contradicts this assumption:

Nazi Germany maintained private property and formed close alliances with major industrialists including Krupp, IG Farben, and Thyssen. The regime’s first major actions included crushing labor unions and socialist movements while protecting capitalist interests. As historian Adam Tooze documented in “The Wages of Destruction”, the Nazi economy was fundamentally capitalist, with the state coordinating private enterprise for military purposes⁴.

Fascist Italy under Mussolini developed “corporatism”, which despite its name meant state-mediated collaboration between capital and labor with capital firmly dominant. Independent labor organizing was suppressed while business interests were protected⁵.

Franco’s Spain was explicitly pro-business and anti-labor, forming close alliances with both domestic oligarchs and international capital⁶.

The pattern across historical fascism shows:

Preservation of capitalist economic structures
Suppression of labor organizing and left-wing movements
Alliance with business elites (who often initially support fascists as bulwarks against socialism)
Use of nationalism to redirect class conflict into ethnic/cultural conflict

Therefore, SD’s pro-market or business-friendly positions do not contradict a fascist analysis — they align with historical fascist practice. Fascism serves capital by destroying working-class solidarity and redirecting legitimate grievances about economic exploitation toward scapegoated minorities. This is not incidental but essential to fascism’s function within capitalist societies.

3.3 The Tactical Use of Democracy

A critical objection to labeling SD as fascist is that they “operate within the democratic system” and don’t advocate for single-party rule. However, this objection ignores historical patterns:

All successful fascist movements initially operated within democratic systems. The Nazi Party participated in Weimar elections, formed coalitions, and used parliamentary procedures. Mussolini’s March on Rome occurred within the context of constitutional crisis, and he was appointed Prime Minister legally.

The question is not whether a party currently advocates overthrowing democracy, but whether:

Their ideology is fundamentally incompatible with pluralistic democracy
They view democratic participation as tactical rather than principled
They erode democratic norms and institutions when given power
Their historical trajectory suggests authoritarian tendencies

On all these measures, SD raises serious concerns.

Moreover, liberal democracy’s claim to legitimacy rests on the fiction that all participants genuinely accept democratic rules. When movements use democratic procedures to gain power while fundamentally opposing the pluralism democracy requires, the system becomes a weapon against itself. Fascists understand this; liberals often refuse to.

4. Key Figures and Disturbing Rhetoric

4.1 Richard Jomshof: Islamophobia and Support for Genocide

Richard Jomshof serves as SD’s parliamentary group leader, making him one of the most powerful figures in the party. His statements reveal the party’s ideological core beneath its moderate veneer.

The Islam-Nazism Comparison (2013)

During a speech in the Swedish Riksdag in 2013, Jomshof stated that Islam, unlike Christianity, is “immoral and violent”. He explicitly compared Islam to Nazism, claiming both “have no place in Western society”⁷.

This comparison is analytically revealing. By substituting “Islam/Muslims” for “Jews” in Jomshof’s rhetoric, we find structural similarity to 1930s Nazi propaganda:

Both essentialize an entire religious/ethnic group as inherently dangerous
Both claim this group is incompatible with “our” civilization
Both frame the group as an existential threat requiring extreme measures
Both use the language of civilizational defense

Jomshof uses anti-Nazi rhetoric while employing Nazi logic — a form of what scholars call “secondary antisemitism” or in this case, “secondary fascism”.

Support for Israeli Genocide in Gaza

Jomshof has repeatedly expressed strong support for Israeli military operations, including:

Posing with Israeli flags on multiple occasions
Wishing the IDF “good hunting” during military operations
Framing Israeli actions as civilizational defense

The “good hunting” comment is particularly chilling, as it employs hunting metaphors — language of pursuing animals — for military operations against human populations. This represents textbook dehumanization.

As of September 2025, the UN Commission of Inquiry has definitively found that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip⁸. This is no longer a question of “potential” genocide but documented fact. Jomshof’s enthusiastic support for these operations — describing them as beneficial, wishing soldiers “good hunting” — represents explicit support for genocide.

The Ethnonationalist Logic

Jomshof’s simultaneous support for Israeli ethnonationalism and Swedish ethnonationalism reveals the underlying ideology: ethnostates are legitimate; multiculturalism is dangerous. The common thread is not democracy versus authoritarianism, but ethnic nationalism as an organizing principle.

International organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented that Israel operates an apartheid system in the occupied Palestinian territories⁹¹⁰. The UN Commission has now confirmed genocide⁸. Jomshof’s enthusiastic support for these policies while in a position of Swedish parliamentary leadership demonstrates his comfort with ethnic supremacy and genocide.

4.2 Ebba Busch: Mainstreaming Fascistic Rhetoric

Ebba Busch, leader of the Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna, KD) and Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister since 2022, represents the normalization of far-right rhetoric within supposedly mainstream conservatism. Her statements and actions may be even more dangerous than SD’s because they come with the legitimacy of a historically center-right party now in government.

”Islam Must Adapt or Leave”

Busch has stated: “Islam must adapt to Swedish values. Muslims who do not integrate must leave the country”¹¹¹². She has framed this as part of a “cultural war” against what she terms “naivety towards Islamism”.

This rhetoric conflates Islam with Islamism, treating all Muslims as potential threats. The ultimatum — “adapt or leave” — is ethnic/religious cleansing rhetoric. Swedish citizens who are Muslim are implicitly told they don’t belong in their own country based on their religion.

”Israel Is Doing the Whole World a Favor”

During Israeli military operations in Gaza, Busch stated that “Israel is doing the whole world a favor”¹³. This comment became so controversial it was subject to constitutional review in Sweden.

Context matters enormously here. This statement was made while Israeli operations were killing tens of thousands of civilians, which again the UN Commission has confirmed constitute genocide⁸. To frame genocide as “doing the world a favor” is to:

Dehumanize Palestinians (their deaths are beneficial)
Frame the conflict as civilizational warfare (“they” threaten “us all”)
Normalize mass civilian casualties and genocide as acceptable
Explicitly support genocide from a position of state power

Busch later claimed the quote was taken out of context, employing a standard tactic: say something extreme, gauge reaction, walk it back if necessary, but the message has been sent to supporters. This is plausible deniability while normalizing increasingly extreme positions.

Long History of IDF Support

Busch has been photographed:

Wearing IDF gear
Posing with Israeli military tanks
Repeatedly displaying the Israeli flag

This goes beyond diplomatic support for a foreign country to enthusiastic identification with a military conducting genocide⁸.

The AI-Generated Fake Quote

In a revealing incident reported by Expressen, Busch fabricated a feminist quote using AI for her Almedal speech, using it to attack feminism as the cause of boys’ educational problems¹⁴. This demonstrates:

Willingness to lie and manipulate for ideological purposes
Starting with a conclusion and fabricating evidence
Classic propaganda technique
The ideological project: blaming feminism rather than addressing systemic issues like capitalism, patriarchy, and educational defunding

Calling Protesters “Barbarians”

When pro-Palestinian activists peacefully protested a government minister saying “Shame on you!” Busch responded by:

Calling the protesters “barbarians”
Demanding police action
Calling for stronger laws to protect politicians (restricting protest rights)
Framing peaceful dissent as threatening democracy¹⁵

The irony is profound: she supports actual barbarity (genocide⁸) while calling peaceful protesters “barbarians”. This reveals authoritarian tendencies — dissent is framed as illegitimate threat rather than democratic participation. More fundamentally, it reveals the state’s function: protecting those in power from accountability while enabling violence against the powerless.

Restricting Immigrant Voting Rights

Busch’s Christian Democrats have proposed eliminating or severely restricting voting rights for non-citizen residents, even those who have lived in Sweden for years and pay taxes¹⁶. Busch stated: “Otherwise you can’t eat here. Otherwise there is no place for you at this table”.

This dehumanizing language (“no place at the table”) combined with proposals to restrict democratic participation based on national origin represents explicit ethnonationalism: only “real Swedes” should have political voice.

A KD colleague went further, demanding loyalty oaths to Israel — a state now confirmed committing genocide — as a condition for Swedish citizenship, requiring allegiance to a genocidal foreign ethnostate as proof of Swedish belonging.

4.3 Jimmie Åkesson: The Moderate Face

Jimmie Åkesson, SD’s leader since 2005, has carefully cultivated an image as a reasonable moderate simply concerned about immigration levels. However, his statements reveal continuity with the party’s extremist roots:

“Keep Sweden Swedish”

Åkesson has repeatedly used variations of “Keep Sweden Swedish” (Bevara Sverige Svenskt), the name of the neo-Nazi organization from which SD emerged. While he frames this as cultural preservation, the phrase carries explicit white supremacist connotations in Swedish context.

Muslim “Greatest Foreign Threat”

In 2009, Åkesson wrote that Muslim immigration represents Sweden’s “greatest foreign threat since World War II”¹⁷. This frames an entire religious group as an enemy invasion, using the language of existential warfare.

The “Ticking Time Bomb”

Åkesson has described immigration as a “ticking time bomb” under Sweden, employing explosive metaphors that suggest inevitable catastrophe and justify extreme preventive measures.

4.4 Other Concerning Figures

Erik Almqvist and the Iron Pipe Scandal (Järnrörsskandalen)

In 2012, SD parliamentarians Erik Almqvist, Christian Westling, and Kent Ekeroth were caught on video:

Making racist and sexist remarks
Almqvist wielding an iron pipe in a threatening manner toward people of immigrant background
Using slurs and dehumanizing language

This incident, known as the Iron Pipe Scandal (Järnrörsskandalen), occurred in 2012 — not ancient history, but during SD’s “moderated” era¹⁸. The fact that sitting parliamentarians engaged in this behavior suggests the moderation is superficial.

Kent Ekeroth

Beyond the iron pipe incident, Kent Ekeroth (SD’s former justice policy spokesman) has been involved in multiple scandals including:

Racist and Islamophobic social media posts
Connections to far-right extremist networks
Inflammatory rhetoric about Muslims and immigrants

Despite these scandals, Ekeroth remained in prominent party positions for years, suggesting the party’s tolerance for extremism.

Jeff Ahl

SD parliamentarian Jeff Ahl has made multiple controversial statements including:

Questioning the Holocaust death toll
Sharing content from neo-Nazi websites
Making antisemitic remarks

While the party eventually distanced itself from Ahl’s most extreme statements, the pattern of such figures reaching prominent positions suggests systemic rather than isolated problems.

5. The Pattern of Normalization

5.1 The Overton Window Shift

The Overton window — the range of politically acceptable discourse — has shifted dramatically in Sweden over the past 15 years. Positions that were considered extremist in 2010 are now mainstream talking points:

2010: SD’s anti-immigration stance was considered beyond the pale; other parties refused to cooperate with them.

2015-2016: The refugee crisis created space for “legitimate concerns” about immigration.

2018: Mainstream parties began adopting SD’s framing and some policy positions to compete for voters.

2022: SD became the second-largest party; the center-right coalition depends on SD support; a Christian Democrat leader serves as Deputy Prime Minister while making statements nearly indistinguishable from SD rhetoric.

This progression mirrors the normalization of Nazi rhetoric in 1930s Germany, where extremist positions became “reasonable concerns” that “responsible” parties felt compelled to address.

5.2 Mainstreaming Through Coalition

The willingness of the Moderates (Moderaterna), Christian Democrats, and Liberals (Liberalerna) to form a government dependent on SD support has been transformative. When “respectable” parties collaborate with or echo far-right rhetoric:

It legitimizes the underlying worldview
It signals this isn’t “fringe” but consensus
It creates a governing bloc with ethnonationalist tendencies
It makes opposition seem unreasonable or hysterical

The Christian Democrats’ role is particularly significant. When a party with “Christian” and “Democrat” in its name adopts rhetoric about Muslims needing to “leave” and praises military operations now confirmed as genocide⁸, it provides moral cover for positions that would otherwise be recognized as extremist.

5.3 The Danger of Respectability

Contemporary fascism arrives not in jackboots but in business suits. As the ETC article analyzing Busch noted: “Fascism today doesn’t wear uniforms — it’s carried by smiling women in suits and jeans”¹⁹.

This respectability makes it more dangerous than explicit extremism because:

Reduced resistance: People’s psychological defenses are lowered
Broader coalition: “Moderate” parties and voters feel comfortable joining
Incremental implementation: Each step seems small and reasonable
Divided opposition: Energy is wasted debating “are they really fascist?”
International legitimacy: They’re treated as normal democratic actors
Media normalization: Their positions are presented as one side of legitimate debate

5.4 Historical Parallels

The Nazi Party’s rise provides instructive parallels:

They didn’t start with death camps. They started with:

“Legitimate concerns” about German suffering after WWI
Economic anxiety and scapegoating
Cultural decline narratives
Minority scapegoating (Jews, Roma, communists)
Law and order rhetoric
Gradual normalization through coalition politics
Respectable figures providing cover

By the time the threat was undeniable, the infrastructure of oppression was already built and normalized.

6. Ideological Analysis: The Core of Contemporary Fascism

6.1 Ethnonationalism as Organizing Principle

The central ideological commitment of SD and increasingly of their coalition partners is ethnonationalism: the belief that nations should be organized around ethnic/cultural homogeneity and that diversity represents a threat.

This manifests in:

Opposition to immigration, especially from non-European/non-Christian countries
Rhetoric about “Swedish values” and “Western civilization” as distinct and superior
Support for ethnostates (Israel) while promoting Swedish ethnic nationalism
Framing multiculturalism as failed or dangerous
Proposals to restrict political participation based on national origin

6.2 Civilizational Warfare Framing

Both SD and KD increasingly employ civilizational warfare rhetoric:

Islam vs. “the West”
“Cultural war” language (Busch)
Immigration as “invasion” or “threat”
Muslims as incompatible with Swedish/Western values

This framing:

Creates existential stakes (it’s us or them)
Justifies extreme measures (we’re defending civilization)
Dehumanizes outgroups (they’re barbarians, threats)
Precludes compromise or coexistence

This is the same logic that enables genocide — which we now see confirmed in Gaza⁸ with the explicit support of Swedish government figures.

6.3 Authoritarian Tendencies

Despite operating within democratic systems, these parties exhibit authoritarian characteristics:

Hostility to press freedom: SD has repeatedly attacked Swedish public media (SVT, SR) and mainstream press as biased and corrupt, calling for defunding or restructuring.

Restricting protest rights: Busch’s response to peaceful protesters — calling them “barbarians” and demanding stronger laws to protect politicians — reveals intolerance for dissent.

Restricting voting rights: Proposals to eliminate or severely restrict non-citizen voting represent exclusion from democratic participation based on ethnicity/nationality.

Law and order maximalism: Both SD and KD emphasize punitive law enforcement, longer sentences, and expanded police powers with minimal concern for civil liberties.

Loyalty tests: Proposals for loyalty oaths and integration requirements that go beyond legal compliance to demand ideological conformity.

6.4 Strategic Dehumanization

Dehumanizing rhetoric appears consistently:

“Barbarians” (Busch, about protesters)
“Good hunting” (Jomshof, about IDF genocidal operations)
“No place at the table” (Busch, about immigrants)
Comparing Islam to Nazism (Jomshof)
Immigration as “invasion” or “threat”

This language is not accidental. Dehumanization is a necessary precursor to violence and exclusion. When groups are framed as less than human, actions against them — including genocide — become easier to justify and support.

7. Why “Crypto-Fascist” Is Appropriate

7.1 The Case for the Label

Given the evidence presented, characterizing SD and increasingly their coalition partners as “crypto-fascist with strong fascistic tendencies” is analytically defensible:

Crypto- (hidden/concealed): They do not openly identify as fascist and employ democratic rhetoric while pursuing fascistic goals.

Fascist: They exhibit the core characteristics of fascist movements:

Ultranationalism and ethnic supremacy
Identification of outgroups as existential threats
Dehumanizing rhetoric
Authoritarian tendencies
Alliance with capitalist interests
Use of democratic systems tactically
Historical roots in explicit fascism (SD)
Support for genocide (in Gaza)

Strong fascistic tendencies: The trajectory is toward more extreme positions, not moderation; normalization is increasing, not decreasing; coalition partners are adopting rather than moderating their rhetoric.

7.2 The Semantic Debate as Distraction

Debates about whether these parties are “technically” fascist often obscure the substantive analysis. The relevant questions are not primarily taxonomic but practical:

Are they a threat to democracy, human rights, and vulnerable populations? Yes.
Does their ideology lead toward authoritarianism and ethnic cleansing? Yes.
Is their trajectory dangerous regardless of the precise label? Yes.
Are they normalizing positions that historically led to atrocity? Yes.
Do they actively support ongoing genocide? Yes.

Whether we call this “fascism”, “crypto-fascism”, “radical right populism”, or “extreme ethnonationalism”, the danger remains the same.

Liberal insistence on procedural precision over substantive justice serves fascist normalization. When the Deputy Prime Minister praises genocide and remains in office, debating whether this is “technically” fascist is not rigorous analysis — it’s complicity through inaction.

7.3 The Advantage of Not Using the Label

There is a tactical advantage for these movements in not openly identifying as fascist:

Avoids immediate resistance: If they called themselves fascists, opposition would be unified and immediate
Divides opponents: Critics seem hysterical; defenders seem reasonable
Gains mainstream access: They’re treated as legitimate democratic actors
Enables coalition building: “Respectable” parties can collaborate without seeming extreme
Normalizes incrementally: Each step seems small rather than revolutionary

This suggests the moderation is strategic rather than sincere — making them potentially more dangerous than openly fascist movements.

8. The Role of Israel-Palestine

8.1 Why This Matters

The enthusiastic support that figures like Jomshof and Busch show for Israeli policies in Palestine is not peripheral but central to understanding their ideology.

8.2 Support for Ethnonationalism and Genocide

Their support for Israel reveals that the underlying commitment is not to democracy or human rights but to ethnonationalism as a legitimate organizing principle:

They support Jewish ethnonationalism in Israel/Palestine
They promote Swedish/European ethnonationalism at home
The common thread: ethnostates are good; multiculturalism is dangerous
This is why they can simultaneously oppose Muslim immigration to Sweden while supporting policies that constitute genocide against Palestinians

8.3 The Genocide Confirmed

As of September 2025, the UN Commission of Inquiry has found that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip⁸. This is no longer speculation, potential, or accusation — it is documented fact by the international body responsible for such determinations. This finding follows South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice filed in December 2023²⁰.

Context:

Tens of thousands of civilians killed, including over 18,000 children
Over 200 journalists killed
Over 400 aid workers killed
Mass displacement, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and humanitarian catastrophe
Systematic targeting of hospitals, schools, refugee camps
Deliberate starvation as weapon of war

For Swedish political leaders to describe these operations as “doing the world a favor” or to wish military forces “good hunting” represents:

Explicit support for genocide
Dehumanization of Palestinians
Comfort with ethnic cleansing
Civilizational warfare framing (Muslims as global threat)

This is not hyperbole or political rhetoric — this is Swedish government officials supporting UN-confirmed genocide.

8.4 The Substitution Test

When Jomshof compares Islam to Nazism while supporting genocide, the irony is profound. He uses anti-Nazi rhetoric while supporting policies structurally identical to what Nazis did:

Ethnic supremacy (Jewish over Palestinian / Swedish over immigrant)
Territorial expansion and displacement (settlements / “Keep Sweden Swedish”)
Dehumanization of targeted group (Palestinians / Muslims)
Framing as civilizational defense (against Arab/Muslim threat / against Muslim “invasion”)
Genocide in Gaza (the Holocaust)

The substitution test — replacing “Muslims” with “Jews” in their rhetoric — reveals the structural similarity to Nazi propaganda.

9. The Broader European Context

9.1 Sweden Is Not Alone

Sweden’s situation must be understood within a broader European context of far-right normalization:

Italy: Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy (Fratelli d’Italia), with roots in post-fascist MSI, now leads the government²¹.

France: Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (Rassemblement National) has been normalized and nearly won the presidency²².

Hungary: Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz has created what he calls “illiberal democracy”, restricting press freedom, judicial independence, and minority rights²³.

Poland: The former Law and Justice (PiS) government pursued similar illiberal policies before losing power in 2023²⁴.

Netherlands: Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) won the most seats in 2023 elections on an explicitly anti-Islam platform²⁵.

Germany: Alternative for Germany (AfD) has grown despite — or because of — increasingly explicit extremism²⁶.

9.2 The Pattern

Across Europe, we see:

Far-right parties moving from margins to mainstream
“Respectable” conservative parties adopting their rhetoric and forming coalitions
Focus on Islam/immigration as primary threat
Erosion of democratic norms and minority rights
Civilizational warfare framing
Historical revisionism and nationalism

9.3 Why Now?

Multiple factors enable this normalization:

Economic anxiety: Neoliberal policies have created insecurity that far-right movements channel into xenophobia rather than class analysis. Capitalism requires scapegoats to prevent class consciousness.

Refugee/migration: The 2015 refugee crisis and ongoing migration — often caused by Western imperialism and climate change — created conditions for “legitimate concerns” framing.

Social media: Algorithms amplify extreme content; echo chambers radicalize; misinformation spreads faster than correction. Platform capitalism profits from fascist engagement.

Declining trust: Erosion of trust in mainstream institutions creates space for “outsider” movements. This erosion is justified — liberal democracy has failed most people — but fascism offers false solutions.

Cultural backlash: Reactions to social changes (gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, multiculturalism) fuel reactionary movements. Patriarchy and white supremacy fight back.

Russian influence: Strategic support for far-right movements across Europe to destabilize liberal democracy.

Memory fade: As WWII survivors die, direct memory of fascism’s consequences fades.

Capitalist crisis: As capitalism enters deeper crisis, it turns to fascism to maintain control and prevent socialist alternatives.

10. Why This May Be Worse Than Historical Fascism

10.1 The Normalization Advantage

Contemporary crypto-fascism may be more dangerous than historical open fascism precisely because it is normalized:

Less resistance: When fascism arrives in uniforms, people recognize and resist it. When it arrives in suits speaking of “legitimate concerns”, defenses are lowered.

Broader coalition: Explicit fascism alienates moderates. Crypto-fascism allows “respectable” people and parties to participate without cognitive dissonance.

Incremental implementation: Revolutionary change triggers resistance. Incremental normalization (each step small and “reasonable”) builds infrastructure of oppression before opposition mobilizes.

Divided opposition: Energy is wasted debating definitions rather than organizing resistance.

International legitimacy: Openly fascist movements face sanctions and isolation. Crypto-fascist movements are treated as legitimate democratic actors, maintaining international relationships and economic integration.

Plausible deniability: Every extreme statement can be walked back, taken “out of context”, or dismissed as “just one person”. The movement advances while maintaining respectability.

10.2 The Democratic Paradox

These movements exploit democracy’s tolerance:

Free speech protections allow hate speech
Electoral systems give them platforms
Coalition politics give them power
Democratic norms prevent aggressive counter-measures

Once in power, they can:

Restrict voting rights (as KD proposes)
Limit press freedom (as SD attacks media)
Constrain protest (as Busch demands)
Pack courts and institutions
Change rules to entrench power

By the time the threat is undeniable, democratic defenses have been systematically dismantled.

This reveals a fundamental truth: liberal democracy cannot defend itself against fascism because it treats fascism as a legitimate political position rather than an existential threat. Only radical, anti-fascist organizing can effectively resist.

10.3 The Technology Factor

Contemporary movements have tools historical fascists lacked:

Surveillance: Modern states can monitor populations with unprecedented precision.

Social media: Rapid radicalization, echo chambers, targeted propaganda, and misinformation at scale.

Data analytics: Micro-targeting of messages, identification of persuadable populations, optimization of propaganda.

Coordination: Global far-right networks share strategies, support each other, learn from successes.

If contemporary crypto-fascist movements achieve the power historical fascists did, they will have far more effective tools of control and oppression.

11. Counter-Arguments and Responses

11.1 “They’re Just Concerned About Immigration”

Counter-argument: Many people have legitimate concerns about immigration policy, integration challenges, and cultural change. Calling everyone who shares these concerns “fascist” is counterproductive and inaccurate.

Response: This argument requires careful unpacking because it contains a dangerous assumption: that “concerns about immigration” are politically neutral or inevitable.

First, there is a difference between policy disagreements and fascistic rhetoric:

Fascistic rhetoric: “Muslims are like Nazis and have no place in our society” (Jomshof)
Fascistic rhetoric: “Muslims who don’t integrate must leave the country” (Busch)
Fascistic rhetoric: Immigration is the “greatest foreign threat since WWII” (Åkesson)

These are not policy positions — they are dehumanization and ethnic cleansing rhetoric.

However, even seemingly “moderate” policy debates serve normalization:

“We should accept fewer refugees because of housing/integration capacity” is presented as reasonable pragmatism, but this framing is itself deeply problematic:

It accepts scarcity as natural rather than political: Housing shortages are not acts of God — they result from deliberate policy choices that prioritize profit over human needs. The “solution” should be building housing, not reducing refugees.
It treats refugees as the problem rather than capitalism: When we say “we don’t have enough houses for refugees”, we naturalize a system that allows empty luxury apartments while people sleep in streets. The problem is not refugees but a housing system organized around profit.
It shifts focus from systemic solutions to scapegoating: Instead of demanding housing as a human right, it accepts that some people must be excluded. This is the logic of triage applied to human dignity.
It normalizes the premise that “we” (nation-state citizens) have legitimate claim to exclude “them”: This accepts nationalist logic that treats borders and citizenship as natural rather than violent constructs that serve capital and state power.
It participates in the Overton window shift: Even “moderate” acceptance of reduced refugee numbers moves the debate rightward. Yesterday’s “extreme” position (fewer refugees) becomes today’s “moderate compromise”, preparing ground for tomorrow’s extremism (deportations, camps, violence).

This is how normalization works: Not through everyone suddenly becoming Nazis, but through incremental acceptance of exclusionary logic. Each “reasonable” compromise with scarcity politics and nationalist premises makes the next step easier.

A radical position rejects this entirely:

Housing is a human right; build more housing
Borders are violent constructs that serve capital and empire
Refugees are created by imperialism, capitalism, and climate change — address root causes
“Integration” rhetoric often means forced assimilation to dominant culture
The “capacity” to welcome people is political choice, not natural limit

The issue is not policy nuance but fundamental premises: Do we accept nationalist exclusion as legitimate, or do we recognize it as violence?

11.2 “They’ve Moderated and Expelled Extremists”

Counter-argument: SD has made genuine efforts to expel extremists and moderate their positions. Judging them by their past rather than their present is unfair.

Response:

The moderation is primarily aesthetic: Suits instead of boots, “immigration criticism” instead of explicit racism, but the underlying ideology remains ethnonationalist and exclusionary.

Extremists remain in high positions: Jomshof (parliamentary group leader) compares Islam to Nazism and supports genocide. If this is “moderated”, what would unmoderated look like?

Pattern of scandals continues: The Iron Pipe incident (2012), various members’ extremist statements, connections to neo-Nazi networks — these occur during the “moderated” era, suggesting systemic rather than isolated problems.

Judge by actions: When given power at local/regional levels, have they demonstrated democratic commitment or authoritarian tendencies? The evidence suggests the latter.

Historical pattern: Fascist movements routinely moderate tactically to gain power. The question is whether moderation is sincere ideological change or strategic concealment.

11.3 “Other Parties Are Adopting Their Positions, So They Must Be Reasonable”

Counter-argument: If mainstream parties like the Christian Democrats are adopting similar positions, this suggests these aren’t extremist views but emerging consensus.

Response: This argument mistakes normalization for validation. The fact that other parties adopt far-right rhetoric demonstrates the success of the normalization strategy, not the reasonableness of the positions.

Historical parallel: In 1930s Germany, mainstream conservative parties increasingly adopted Nazi rhetoric and formed coalitions with them. This didn’t make Nazi positions reasonable — it demonstrated how extremism becomes normalized.

The question is whether parties are moving toward SD because:

SD’s positions are actually reasonable (evidence suggests not)
Mainstream parties are being pulled rightward by electoral competition (evidence suggests yes)

Normalization is a process, not a validation. When the Deputy Prime Minister praises genocide, other parties’ silence or complicity doesn’t make it acceptable — it shows how far the rot has spread.

11.4 “You’re Just Calling Everyone You Disagree With ‘Fascist’”

Counter-argument: The term “fascist” is overused and has lost meaning. Applying it to democratic parties you disagree with is hyperbolic and counterproductive.

Response: This study has provided extensive evidence for the characterization:

Historical roots in neo-Nazi movements (documented)
Dehumanizing rhetoric toward minorities (documented with specific quotes)
Support for genocide (documented)
Authoritarian tendencies (documented)
Ethnonationalist ideology (documented)
Pattern of extremist scandals (documented)
Tactical use of democratic systems (analyzed)

This is not name-calling but analytical assessment based on:

Historical patterns
Ideological content
Rhetorical strategies
Actions and proposals
Comparative analysis with historical fascism

The label is applied not because of policy disagreement but because the evidence supports it.

Moreover, the accusation that “you call everyone fascist” is itself a fascist tactic — discrediting anti-fascist analysis by claiming it’s indiscriminate, making people hesitant to identify actual fascism for fear of seeming unreasonable.

11.5 “Calling Them Fascist Will Just Make Them Stronger”

Counter-argument: Using extreme language alienates persuadable voters and allows these parties to play the victim. Strategic silence or euphemism is more effective.

Response: This is a tactical question, but the premise is flawed:

Euphemism enables normalization: Calling them “populist” or “nationalist” obscures the specific danger they pose. We’ve tried euphemism — it hasn’t worked. They’re stronger than ever.

Clarity can mobilize opposition: Understanding the threat is necessary for effective resistance. People need to know what they’re facing.

They play victim regardless: SD and allies claim persecution whether called “fascist”, “far-right”, or “immigration critics”. Moderating our language doesn’t moderate their behavior.

Historical lesson: German conservatives who thought they could control or moderate the Nazis were catastrophically wrong. Clarity about the threat might have enabled more effective resistance.

The real question: Is the danger of normalization (through euphemism) greater than the danger of alienation (through clarity)? Given that normalization has progressed to the point where the Deputy Prime Minister praises genocide, euphemism has failed. Clarity is necessary.

From a radical perspective: Liberal civility politics serves fascist normalization. The insistence on “moderate” language, “both sides” framing, and treating fascism as legitimate political position enables fascist growth. Anti-fascism requires calling fascism what it is.

12. What Is To Be Done?

12.1 Recognition

The first step is recognizing the threat clearly:

These are not normal democratic parties with different policy preferences
This is not primarily about immigration policy but about ethnonationalism and fascistic ideology
The moderation is tactical, not sincere
The trajectory is toward authoritarianism and ethnic exclusion
The normalization is advanced and dangerous
Liberal democratic frameworks are inadequate to the threat

12.2 Resistance Strategies: A Radical Framework

Liberal democratic responses to fascism have failed. Electoral politics, fact-checking, and appeals to democratic norms cannot stop movements that exploit democracy to destroy it. A radical anti-fascist framework is necessary:

Direct Action and Community Defense

Organize autonomous anti-fascist networks: Don’t wait for the state to protect vulnerable communities — it won’t. Build self-defense networks, rapid response teams, and community protection systems.

No platform for fascists: Deny fascists spaces to organize. This means:

Shutting down fascist events through protest and direct action
Pressuring venues not to host them
Making fascist organizing socially and physically costly
Confronting fascist presence in public spaces

Protect vulnerable communities:

Escort services for targeted individuals
Rapid response to fascist harassment or violence
Safe houses and support networks
Community watch programs

Doxxing and exposure:

Identify fascists publicly
Expose their employment, associations, activities
Make participation in fascist movements carry real social costs
Document and publicize their connections and funding

Building Alternative Power

Mutual aid networks: Build systems of support that don’t depend on the state:

Food distribution
Housing support
Healthcare access
Legal defense funds
Childcare collectives

Worker organizing:

Build militant labor unions
Organize workplace resistance
General strikes when fascists take power
Worker control of production

Tenant unions and housing struggles:

Resist evictions collectively
Squat empty buildings
Demand housing as human right
Fight gentrification that displaces communities

Autonomous zones and liberated spaces:

Create spaces outside state/capitalist control
Practice prefigurative politics
Demonstrate alternatives to nationalism and capitalism

Ideological Struggle

Counter-narratives:

Challenge nationalist mythology
Expose capitalism’s role in creating conditions fascism exploits
Build class consciousness to counter ethnic division
Celebrate actual diversity and solidarity

Popular education:

Teach anti-fascist history
Analyze how fascism functions
Develop critical consciousness
Share skills and knowledge freely

Cultural resistance:

Art, music, literature that opposes fascism
Reclaim public space through culture
Build alternative media
Create counterculture that rejects fascist aesthetics and values

Confronting the State

Recognize the state won’t save us: Police and military often sympathize with fascists. The state’s primary function is protecting property and power, not people.

Oppose police expansion: “Law and order” politics enable fascism. Resist:

Increased police funding
Surveillance expansion
Anti-protest laws
Border militarization

Defend protest rights through action:

Mass civil disobedience
Overwhelm repressive capacity through numbers
Mutual legal support
Jail solidarity

Sabotage fascist infrastructure:

Disrupt deportation systems
Interfere with surveillance
Obstruct fascist state operations through non-cooperation

International Solidarity

Build transnational networks: Fascism is international; resistance must be too:

Share tactics and strategies
Coordinate actions across borders
Support refugees and migrants
Oppose imperialism and borders themselves

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions:

Target states committing genocide (like Israel, confirmed by UN⁸)
Boycott companies supporting fascism
Divest from industries enabling oppression
Economic warfare against fascist interests

Material support for resistance:

Fund anti-fascist organizing globally
Support Palestinian resistance
Aid refugees fleeing violence
Provide resources for frontline communities

Revolutionary Perspective

Understand fascism as capitalism in crisis: Fascism emerges when capitalism can no longer maintain control through liberal democracy. Fighting fascism requires fighting capitalism.

Build dual power: Create alternative institutions that can replace state and capital:

Worker cooperatives
Community assemblies
Horizontal decision-making
Resource sharing networks

Prepare for escalation: Fascists will use violence. We must be prepared to defend ourselves and our communities:

Self-defense training
Security culture
Strategic planning
Willingness to take risks

Revolutionary optimism: Despite the danger, another world is possible. Our resistance isn’t just against fascism but for liberation:

Abolish borders
End capitalism
Destroy white supremacy
Dismantle patriarchy
Create free, egalitarian communities

12.3 What Doesn’t Work

Electoral politics alone: Voting against fascists is necessary but insufficient. Electoral systems are designed to preserve existing power structures.

Debate and dialogue: You cannot debate fascists out of fascism. They don’t care about facts or logic — they care about power.

Appealing to democratic norms: Fascists exploit norms; they don’t respect them.

Waiting for institutions: Courts, police, and governments will not save us. They often enable fascism.

Civility politics: “When they go low, we go high” means losing. Fascists understand power; liberals understand manners.

Reform: Fascism cannot be reformed. It must be defeated.

12.4 Long-Term Vision

Ultimately, preventing fascism requires eliminating the conditions that produce it:

Abolish capitalism: Economic exploitation and insecurity create the conditions fascism exploits.

Abolish borders: Nationalism and citizenship are tools of division and exclusion.

Abolish the state: State power concentrates authority that fascists can capture.

Build libertarian socialism:

Horizontal organization
Direct democracy
Common ownership
Mutual aid
Free association

Create genuine solidarity: Across all divisions of race, nation, gender, sexuality — united against all forms of domination.

This isn’t utopian dreaming — it’s practical necessity. Fascism will keep returning as long as capitalism exists. Only by building a fundamentally different world can we end the cycle.

A Critical Note

The direct action recommendations in Section 12.2, would benefit from additional tactical sophistication to maximize effectiveness while protecting participants. Effective radical organizing requires not only strategic clarity about goals but also careful attention to practical implementation challenges.

Risks and Repression

The recommended tactics — direct action, no platforming, doxxing, sabotage — carry significant risks that deserve explicit discussion:

State repression: Surveillance, infiltration, arrest, prosecution, imprisonment. Modern states have sophisticated counter-insurgency capabilities developed through decades of suppressing left movements.

Movement infiltration: Police informants and agent provocateurs have historically undermined radical organizing by encouraging illegal actions, creating internal divisions, and gathering intelligence.

Burnout and trauma: Sustained high-intensity activism, especially under threat of state violence, causes psychological harm. Movements need sustainability strategies.

Asymmetric consequences: Working-class people, people of color, immigrants, and those with criminal records face harsher legal consequences than privileged activists for identical actions.

Backlash effects: Poorly executed direct action can alienate potential supporters, justify increased repression, and strengthen opposition.

These risks don’t invalidate the tactics — they require careful consideration of when, how, and by whom they should be employed.

Historical pattern suggests most effective anti-fascism combines:

Mass mobilization (broad participation, not just militants)

Multiple tactics (direct action, cultural work, institutional contestation)

Working-class base (not just students/activists)

United fronts (coalitions across ideological differences)

Sustained organization (not episodic responses)

This isn’t a call to exclude vulnerable people from organizing — it’s recognition that effective movements strategically deploy people according to their capacities and vulnerabilities rather than expecting everyone to take identical risks.

13. Conclusion

This case study has examined the Sweden Democrats and their increasing normalization within Swedish politics, with particular focus on key figures like Richard Jomshof and Ebba Busch whose rhetoric reveals the fascistic core beneath democratic veneer.

13.1 Key Findings

SD has roots in explicit neo-Nazi movements and has never fully purged its extremist elements despite tactical moderation.
Key figures regularly employ fascistic rhetoric including dehumanization, civilizational warfare framing, support for genocide, and authoritarian tendencies.
The Christian Democrats under Ebba Busch have adopted nearly identical rhetoric, providing mainstream legitimacy to positions that would otherwise be recognized as extremist, including explicit support for UN-confirmed genocide.
The normalization is advanced and dangerous, with the Overton window shifted dramatically rightward and coalition government dependent on far-right support.
The moderation is tactical rather than ideological, designed to gain power while maintaining plausible deniability about true intentions.
Support for Israeli ethnonationalism and genocide in Palestine (confirmed by UN⁸) reveals commitment to ethnic nationalism as organizing principle, not democracy or human rights.
This represents crypto-fascism — fascistic ideology concealed behind democratic rhetoric — which may be more dangerous than historical open fascism because it generates less resistance.
Sweden’s situation mirrors broader European patterns of far-right normalization, suggesting systemic rather than isolated phenomena.
Liberal democratic frameworks are inadequate to address fascist threats because they treat fascism as legitimate political position rather than existential danger requiring radical resistance.
Even “moderate” policy debates about immigration serve normalization by accepting nationalist premises and scarcity politics rather than demanding systemic solutions.

13.2 The Central Argument

Contemporary fascism does not require swastikas, jackboots, or explicit calls for dictatorship. It arrives in business suits, speaks of “legitimate concerns” and “Swedish values”, operates within democratic systems, and gains power through coalition politics. But beneath the moderate veneer lies the same core logic that animated historical fascism: ethnic supremacy, dehumanization of outgroups, authoritarian tendencies, and willingness to support or commit genocide in defense of the ethnostate.

The Sweden Democrats, with their neo-Nazi roots, pattern of extremist scandals, dehumanizing rhetoric, and support for genocide, represent crypto-fascism. The Christian Democrats under Ebba Busch, with their civilizational warfare rhetoric, support for genocide, proposals to restrict democratic rights, and dehumanization of protesters and minorities, have mainstreamed fascistic positions within supposedly respectable conservatism.

Together, they demonstrate how fascism adapts to contemporary conditions — and how dangerous that adaptation makes it.

13.3 The Stakes

The question is not whether we are witnessing a perfect replication of 1930s-1940s fascism — we are not. The question is whether we are witnessing movements with fascistic ideology gaining power through democratic means while systematically eroding democratic norms, dehumanizing minorities, supporting genocide, and building infrastructure for authoritarianism.

On that question, the evidence is clear: we are.

And because this fascism arrives in respectable form, generating less resistance and broader coalition, it may pose an even greater danger than its historical predecessors.

13.4 A Call to Action

The time for euphemism has passed. Call a spade a spade. This is fascism — and it must be recognized and resisted as such.

Liberal democratic responses — voting, fact-checking, appeals to norms — have failed. The Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden praises UN-confirmed genocide and remains in office. The second-largest party has roots in neo-Nazism and faces no meaningful consequences. The Overton window has shifted so far that ethnic cleansing rhetoric is “legitimate political debate”.

Only radical, organized, militant anti-fascism can stop this.

This means:

Direct action, not just voting
Community defense, not relying on police
No platform for fascists, not “debate”
Building alternative power, not reforming institutions
International solidarity, not nationalism
Revolutionary vision, not liberal democracy

Fascism is capitalism in crisis. It will keep returning until we eliminate the system that produces it. Our struggle is not just against SD or KD — it’s against the entire structure of domination they represent.

Another world is possible. Another world is necessary. We must build it while we fight.

Additional Sources Consulted

Bookchin, M. (1971). Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Berkeley: Ramparts Press.
Eatwell, R. & Goodwin, M. (2018). National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. London: Pelican.
Goldman, E. (1910). Anarchism and Other Essays. New York: Mother Earth Publishing.
Griffin, R. (1991). The Nature of Fascism. London: Pinter Publishers.
Hellström, A. & Nilsson, T. (2010). “‘We Are the Good Guys’: Ideological Positioning of Nationalist Party Websites”. Ethnicities 10(1): 55-76.
Kropotkin, P. (1892). The Conquest of Bread. London: Chapman and Hall.
Malatesta, E. (1891). Anarchy. London: Freedom Press.
Mudde, C. (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Payne, S. G. (1995). A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. University of Wisconsin Press.
Rydgren, J. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right. Oxford University Press.
Widfeldt, A. (2015). “Tensions beneath the Surface: The Swedish Mainstream Right and the Sweden Democrats”. Acta Politica 50(4): 425-443.

Author's Note

This case study represents a critical political analysis from a social anarchist perspective. Factual claims about statements, events, and historical origins are based on documented, publicly verifiable sources. The characterization of parties and figures as “fascist” or “crypto-fascist” represents analytical interpretation grounded in radical political theory, not neutral description.

This article includes advocacy for direct action and collective resistance based on the author’s view that liberal democratic frameworks have failed to address fascist normalization. Claims regarding international events (including the September 2025 UN report on Gaza) reflect the most recent available information at time of writing.

Readers are encouraged to examine primary sources, engage in critical analysis, and draw their own conclusions about appropriate responses.

Solidarity to all fighting fascism. No pasarán.

Eco, U. (1995). “Ur-Fascism”. The New York Review of Books, June 22, 1995. ↩
Lööw, H. (2015). Nazismen i Sverige 1980-1999: Den rasistiska undergroundrörelsen: musiken, myterna, ritualen. Stockholm: Ordfront. ↩
Swedish Election Authority (2022). Election Results 2022. https://www.val.se ↩
Tooze, A. (2006). The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. London: Allen Lane. ↩
Paxton, R. O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Knopf. ↩
Preston, P. (1993). Franco: A Biography. London: HarperCollins. ↩
Swedish Riksdag Records (2013). Parliamentary debate transcript, October 16, 2013. Protokoll 2013/14:13. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/protokoll/riksdagens-protokoll-20131413-onsdagen-den-16_h10913/html/ ↩
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2025). “Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN Commission finds”. September 2025. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰
Amnesty International (2022). Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity. February 1, 2022. ↩
Human Rights Watch (2021). A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution. April 27, 2021. ↩
Busch, E. (2024). “Vi säger bara att islam måste anpassa sig”. Aftonbladet Debatt, June 8, 2024. https://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/4BzxBV/ebba-busch-vi-sager-bara-att-islam-i-sverige-maste-anpassa-sig ↩
Busch, E. (2024). Statement on Islam and European values. Dagens Nyheter, May 28, 2024. https://www.dn.se/sverige/ebba-busch-vill-att-eu-betalar-for-atervandring-islam-maste-anpassa-sig/ ↩
Swedish Riksdag (2024). Constitutional Committee Complaint regarding Vice Prime Minister Ebba Busch’s statements on Israel policy. KU-anmälan HCA1DNR2202. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/ku-anmalan/granskning-av-vice-statsministerns-ageranden-med_hca1dnr2202/ ↩
Jerneck, L. (2024). “Ebbas falska citat är inte ens det mest pinsamma”. Expressen, https://www.expressen.se/ledare/linda-jerneck/—ebbas-falska-citat-ar-inte—ens-det-mest-pinsamma/ ↩
Busch, E. (2025). Statement on Palestinian activists. Svenska Dagbladet, September 10, 2025. https://www.svd.se/a/Oo4lwl/busch-aktivisterna-beter-sig-som-barbarer ↩
Nordic Times (2024). “Christian Democrats want stricter voting rules for immigrants in Sweden”. https://nordictimes.com/the-nordics/sweden/christian-democrats-want-stricter-voting-rules-for-immigrants-in-sweden/ ↩
Åkesson, J. (2009). “Muslimerna är vårt största utländska hot”. Aftonbladet, September 2009. ↩
Expressen (2012). “SD-topparna i bråk med järnrör”. November 13, 2012. ↩
ETC (2024). “Busch och Sweeney bär fram vår tids fascism”. https://www.etc.se/debatt/busch-och-sweeney-baer-fram-vaar-tids-fascism ↩
International Court of Justice (2024). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). Case filed December 29, 2023. ↩
Albertazzi, D. & McDonnell, D. (2015). Populists in Power. London: Routledge. ↩
Stockemer, D. (2017). The Front National in France: Continuity and Change Under Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen. Springer. ↩
Bánkuti, M., Halmai, G., & Scheppele, K. L. (2012). “Hungary’s Illiberal Turn: Disabling the Constitution”. Journal of Democracy 23(3): 138-146. ↩
Sadurski, W. (2019). Poland’s Constitutional Breakdown. Oxford University Press. ↩
Vossen, K. (2017). The Power of Populism: Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. Routledge. ↩
Berbuir, N., Lewandowsky, M., & Siri, J. (2015). “The AfD and its Sympathisers: Finally a Right-Wing Populist Movement in Germany”? German Politics 24(2): 154-178. ↩

noxz.tech