What do you think?
Rate this book
Anarcho-Fascism: Nature Reborn
Anarko-fascism: Naturen återfödd är en bok som lyfter flera viktiga frågor och presenterar en såväl kontroversiell som konstruktiv utgångspunkt för en intellektuell diskussionen om hur Västerlandet skall kunna ta tillbaka kontrollen över sitt eget öde. Boken kan med rätta beskrivas som en stridsskrift innehållandes väl underbyggda argument, och frekventa hänvisningar till ytterligare läsning för den som vill fördjupa sig i de frågor som tas upp. Författaren räds inte heller att lyfta frågor som idag är tabu, men likväl är avgörande för utvecklingen.
Titeln Anarko-fascism kan vid en första anblick verka motsägelsefull med de klassiska uppfattningarna om anarkism och fascism i åtanke. Finns det verkligen något som förenar dessa ideologier och som kan vara en lösning på problemen västvärlden står inför? Grundad i författarens statsvetenskapliga examensuppsats går boken utanför ideologiernas snäva ramar, presenterar svar på dessa och andra frågor och tar läsaren med på en diskussion om vilka falska uppfattningar som har stort inflytande idag, vad dess konsekvenser är, samt hur samhället kan organiseras för att undvika en liknande situation i framtiden.
Titeln Anarko-fascism kan vid en första anblick verka motsägelsefull med de klassiska uppfattningarna om anarkism och fascism i åtanke. Finns det verkligen något som förenar dessa ideologier och som kan vara en lösning på problemen västvärlden står inför? Grundad i författarens statsvetenskapliga examensuppsats går boken utanför ideologiernas snäva ramar, presenterar svar på dessa och andra frågor och tar läsaren med på en diskussion om vilka falska uppfattningar som har stort inflytande idag, vad dess konsekvenser är, samt hur samhället kan organiseras för att undvika en liknande situation i framtiden.
106 pages, Hardcover
Published September 8, 2017
5 people are currently reading
131 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 30, 2017
"Anarcho-Fascism is the decentralized practice of government authority into the smallest possible units that can manage to maintain thier own sovereignty. Every man should, as far as possible, be his own Jarl. The smallest lasting unit in a society is his family, whose well-being and safety he is responsible for - along with the other men that belong to his political unit, and he is therefore the inner as well as the outer authority of the family, and its sovereign."
-- Jonas Nilsson
-- Jonas Nilsson
February 15, 2019
This book is weird and not just because of the absurd premise. Two thirds of the book deal with the relations between the sexes instead of what has been set up and it is these relations of all things that form the author's ideology. The last third of the book deals with the state because I guess the author remembered how he titled the book. In this third part which can be seen as a conclusion, he doesn't accomplish what he has set out to do and he stacks up a lot of inconsistency and contradictions. I should not have expected anything more, anarcho-fascism is an oxymoron, but that doesn't mean I will forgive the book. That being said, it is written better than I have expected, which is why it got more than one star. The anti-feminist arguments in this book are written well enough and I was surprised at how close the author moved the two ideologies. Nilsson switches between national-anarchism, some kind of decentralised fascism allergic to bureaucracy and some kind of generic reactionism calling for a revival of masculine values, but ultimately you are either opposed to the state as such, you advocate for a strong ideal state or you want a limited state, you are either an anarchist, a fascist or neither. Nilsson is all in all a tribalist and he is willing to support any system that could be based on his values, he tries to reconcile these different systems, but that is ultimately impossible so any good ideas he has get lost in a terrible illogical mess.
October 12, 2017
The book fills a void that I long felt was missing with the Classical Liberal/Libertarian/Anarchistic world views. Those views have long been seen as opposing a more traditional world view. That we have to choose between freedom from the state and our heritage/traditions, when it is actually the exact opposite. It's the state that takes away both our freedom and our traditions.
Highly recommendable!
Highly recommendable!
March 25, 2024
You may read the title and wonder how two political systems that seem diametrically opposed to one another can be reconciled in any way, but that is what Nilsson does in this book. He doesn’t do this in a concrete way, but more or less finds the commonality in the ideological nature of each political system and ties them together to demonstrate how an ideal nation should operate and how adopting this kind of mentality can help the falling Western nations (and any nation, really). In other words, he does not go deep into economic policy or state structure, but rather approaches these two systems from a perspective of political philosophy and anthropology that can help the common citizen of each nation benefit his in-group, which in turn would help his personal life and vice-versa. I wouldn’t say that he literally believes there can be a system that combines both anarchy and fascism, but rather is drawing attention to common principles despite their structural differences.
There are only three chapters: The Lie, The War, and The State. Much of the first two chapters have to do with the feminization of the West and the feminist movement as a whole. The author is from Sweden, and he gives many examples of the radical stance his country has taken to implement feminist ideology into law and public policy. He goes into detail how feminine men and masculine women abandon their traditional roles within society and thus corrupt it from within. Readers may wonder what this has to do with the state, but he ends up tying all of this together in the end with the state’s monopoly on violence. Men who can’t behave like men are what a corrupt state wants, because they don’t want resistance. Women who want to be men end up quite literally as a genetic dead end. The author points out that If a nation like Sweden (whose military is nearly 50% women) is ever under a serious threat of war, the charade of a feminist military will quickly be abandoned; will it be too late though?
In terms of political philosophy, he references ancient, medieval, and modern thinkers. Aristotle is given preference over Plato, mainly because he believes Plato was too naive to think that men and women could rule and participate in the same activities equally. In addition, Plato does not acknowledge the biological importance of families raising their own children. Aristotle’s focus on kinship and in-group ideology is more in line with what Nilsson is proposing. Clausewitz is cited numerous times regarding his ideas of war and how nations interact with each other. Martin van Creveld is also cited a couple times when the author discusses Israel’s in-group ideology and its proper usage of women in the military, if there even is such a thing. This is a bit ironic and comical, since many people will run away scared when they see the political “F-word” (fascism), yet interestingly enough Israel is very fascistic in many ways. I’m sure Creveld would not want that label, but nevertheless many nations could learn a thing or two about some of the application of Israeli politics to protect their own borders. Of course, when other nations use these methods, they are “extremist” or “xenophobic,” but when Israel uses them, they are just defending themselves from their enemies. Nilsson doesn’t address this hypocrisy himself, but it is something to take note of.
One of the central questions asked in the book that leads to the concept of anarcho-fascism, a question that is often asked in political science, is that of the role of the state - why does it exist? What purpose does it serve? Nilsson argues that the state should in fact exist, and that it serves to protect the people in the event of war and to aid in the flourishing of its citizens. It should also, however, be small enough that should it become corrupt, the citizens can resist and reclaim it, bringing it back to where it should be. Does this sound familiar? Indeed, Nilsson points out the closest nation to ever achieve this form of ideal government is the United States. The Founding Fathers shared many of the same sentiments, and the Constitution overall does a good job at mediating this power balance of the state and its people. The problems we see now in the US, Nilsson points out, are due to the fact that the US has become a “welfare monster” and that it faces the same problems as many Western nations, the feminization of society and its open borders. Perhaps even the founders of this nation couldn’t fathom the current ideas that flow out from modern higher education into society. In any case, the thesis can best be summarized at the end of the book, saying, “Anarcho-Fascism is the decentralized practice of government authority into the smallest possible units that can manage to maintain their own sovereignty. Every man should, as far as possible, be his own Jarl. The smallest lasting unit in a society is his family, whose well-being and safety he is responsible for - along with the other men that belong to his political unit, and he is therefore the inner as well as the outer authority of the family, and its sovereign.” The merging of these two seemingly juxtaposed political systems tells us that the interests of the in-group is the purpose of the state, and this state can only be achieved if each household operates in the same manner on an individual basis. This is how every nation up until the modern era has survived - only now with the modern standard of living do we see this changing, and changing for the worse. What was once common sense and human nature has now been labeled as intolerant and extremist.
To end on an optimistic note, Nilsson says that some form of the political philosophy he posits in this book will end up winning. He says that the current state of extreme liberalism will end up collapsing on itself, and that we are already seeing it happen. What people must focus on is when this collapse happens, to make sure it doesn’t happen again. A nation that sells out its own people for special interests, who gives preference to foreigners over its own citizens, who doesn’t allow its own people to defend themselves, is a living, corrupt entity. When people have nothing else to lose, change is inevitable.
There are only three chapters: The Lie, The War, and The State. Much of the first two chapters have to do with the feminization of the West and the feminist movement as a whole. The author is from Sweden, and he gives many examples of the radical stance his country has taken to implement feminist ideology into law and public policy. He goes into detail how feminine men and masculine women abandon their traditional roles within society and thus corrupt it from within. Readers may wonder what this has to do with the state, but he ends up tying all of this together in the end with the state’s monopoly on violence. Men who can’t behave like men are what a corrupt state wants, because they don’t want resistance. Women who want to be men end up quite literally as a genetic dead end. The author points out that If a nation like Sweden (whose military is nearly 50% women) is ever under a serious threat of war, the charade of a feminist military will quickly be abandoned; will it be too late though?
In terms of political philosophy, he references ancient, medieval, and modern thinkers. Aristotle is given preference over Plato, mainly because he believes Plato was too naive to think that men and women could rule and participate in the same activities equally. In addition, Plato does not acknowledge the biological importance of families raising their own children. Aristotle’s focus on kinship and in-group ideology is more in line with what Nilsson is proposing. Clausewitz is cited numerous times regarding his ideas of war and how nations interact with each other. Martin van Creveld is also cited a couple times when the author discusses Israel’s in-group ideology and its proper usage of women in the military, if there even is such a thing. This is a bit ironic and comical, since many people will run away scared when they see the political “F-word” (fascism), yet interestingly enough Israel is very fascistic in many ways. I’m sure Creveld would not want that label, but nevertheless many nations could learn a thing or two about some of the application of Israeli politics to protect their own borders. Of course, when other nations use these methods, they are “extremist” or “xenophobic,” but when Israel uses them, they are just defending themselves from their enemies. Nilsson doesn’t address this hypocrisy himself, but it is something to take note of.
One of the central questions asked in the book that leads to the concept of anarcho-fascism, a question that is often asked in political science, is that of the role of the state - why does it exist? What purpose does it serve? Nilsson argues that the state should in fact exist, and that it serves to protect the people in the event of war and to aid in the flourishing of its citizens. It should also, however, be small enough that should it become corrupt, the citizens can resist and reclaim it, bringing it back to where it should be. Does this sound familiar? Indeed, Nilsson points out the closest nation to ever achieve this form of ideal government is the United States. The Founding Fathers shared many of the same sentiments, and the Constitution overall does a good job at mediating this power balance of the state and its people. The problems we see now in the US, Nilsson points out, are due to the fact that the US has become a “welfare monster” and that it faces the same problems as many Western nations, the feminization of society and its open borders. Perhaps even the founders of this nation couldn’t fathom the current ideas that flow out from modern higher education into society. In any case, the thesis can best be summarized at the end of the book, saying, “Anarcho-Fascism is the decentralized practice of government authority into the smallest possible units that can manage to maintain their own sovereignty. Every man should, as far as possible, be his own Jarl. The smallest lasting unit in a society is his family, whose well-being and safety he is responsible for - along with the other men that belong to his political unit, and he is therefore the inner as well as the outer authority of the family, and its sovereign.” The merging of these two seemingly juxtaposed political systems tells us that the interests of the in-group is the purpose of the state, and this state can only be achieved if each household operates in the same manner on an individual basis. This is how every nation up until the modern era has survived - only now with the modern standard of living do we see this changing, and changing for the worse. What was once common sense and human nature has now been labeled as intolerant and extremist.
To end on an optimistic note, Nilsson says that some form of the political philosophy he posits in this book will end up winning. He says that the current state of extreme liberalism will end up collapsing on itself, and that we are already seeing it happen. What people must focus on is when this collapse happens, to make sure it doesn’t happen again. A nation that sells out its own people for special interests, who gives preference to foreigners over its own citizens, who doesn’t allow its own people to defend themselves, is a living, corrupt entity. When people have nothing else to lose, change is inevitable.
November 19, 2025
This was a very compelling read with some decent insights into the societal effects of feminism, the implications for the state’s monopoly on violence for the community, and the nature of enmity in politics.
However, the lede was aggressively buried. Nilsson spends so much time venting frustration at feminism (whether you believe it’s deserved or not) and does not truly define “anarcho-fascism” until 90 percent of the way through. This might have warranted four or five stars had it been advertised as what it actually was, or if it spent more time outlining the radical idea named on the very cover. An enjoyable read, but ultimately disappointed to not delve more deeply into the thesis.
However, the lede was aggressively buried. Nilsson spends so much time venting frustration at feminism (whether you believe it’s deserved or not) and does not truly define “anarcho-fascism” until 90 percent of the way through. This might have warranted four or five stars had it been advertised as what it actually was, or if it spent more time outlining the radical idea named on the very cover. An enjoyable read, but ultimately disappointed to not delve more deeply into the thesis.
October 13, 2018
I really wish the book was more of a "here's what this philosophy is. Here's the foreign policy. Here's the economic policy. Here's how this philosophy would respond to this question, and this question, and this one..." ala, Benoist's "Manifesto for a European Renaissance," or Ron Paul's "On Liberty." However, what it does do is explain in socio-political terms where society has gone wrong, and what eventual solution is. The philosophy itself, while a fascinating concept, needs more expansion. We need to know what it is precisely, and how it would respond to particular events or situations.
February 23, 2024
C'était mieux écrit que ce à quoi je m'attendais
Le bouquin n'arrive pas a tenir a son titre évidemment, on est plus sur une forme de "starship trooper-ism" mélangée avec une critique de l'état comme monopole de la violence légitime. Ce qui est assez intéressant c'est que l'on mixe les idées du libertarianisme américain avec celles de skinhead néo-nazis européens.On est basiqiement sur l'idée que l'état a comme intérêt d'empêcher la violence, ce qui pousse vers la gauche et la féminité ainsi que les états pas bien. Oui il y'a donc une énorme dose de misogynie dans ce bouquin
Le bouquin n'arrive pas a tenir a son titre évidemment, on est plus sur une forme de "starship trooper-ism" mélangée avec une critique de l'état comme monopole de la violence légitime. Ce qui est assez intéressant c'est que l'on mixe les idées du libertarianisme américain avec celles de skinhead néo-nazis européens.On est basiqiement sur l'idée que l'état a comme intérêt d'empêcher la violence, ce qui pousse vers la gauche et la féminité ainsi que les états pas bien. Oui il y'a donc une énorme dose de misogynie dans ce bouquin
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 4, 2020
The book didn't necessarily introduce me to any new ideas, it did however explore them in deeper, more meaningful detail. It helped to coalesce and bring focus to some thoughts that I have had and run across in other writings. I hope Mr Nilsson continues to write, I would like a follow up as society changes and we go deeper into the year 2020.
April 16, 2023
Decent argument
A bit heavy on meme-language but should be read more as a polemical against global feminism. I liked the fact he mentioned Unwin’s “Sex And Culture”, a book I plan to read soon
A bit heavy on meme-language but should be read more as a polemical against global feminism. I liked the fact he mentioned Unwin’s “Sex And Culture”, a book I plan to read soon
July 22, 2020
Decent
July 6, 2024
Great book. Another one that will later help in labelling me a nutcase and not letting me pass the security check on an airport.
August 30, 2024
What a pile of bs... There are ideas we can agree on, but it's bad written and explained. Also, author stinks misogyny instead of criticize the real culprits: politicians.
June 17, 2023
It's bad, i liked the concept but author went in bad direction. Author completely neglects impact of JQ over modern western politics, but as he praises AZOV he's probably philosemitic. Author has some knowledge about politics, but he's lacking deep insight in it, his praise of Ukrainan nationalism neglects fact that Ukraine became European Yemen with it's infrastructure destroyed, men killed because of nationalists who chosen to fight on uneven ground. Nietzsche pinpointed nationalism as short sighted as he worried about consequences of Bismarck's politics and that wars kill men who are willing to sacrifice and let's live cowards and with recent leaks from von Der Layen we can say that at least 100k of Ukrainan soldiers are dead and many will die while Russians are drawing from their disposable minorities. National suicide in the name of savings nations, makes me want to puke. Author talks a lot about violence, to some degree i can agree with that but he negates one thing, modern war is extremely costly and advanced weapons should be used to create breakthrough in enemy lines and do blitzkrieg, which is great argument for statism as community can't afford tanks, airplanes and heavy artillery. Militias can stall enemy, but with huge cost in human lives and let's be honest, in NATO-Russia war of attrition time is on Russian side, our economies are crumpling on much greater pase and with welfare states, great reset we can't afford arms race. Another argument why author doesn't understand politics is when he's naming biggest threat to Sweden, Russia didn't brought somalis to Sweden altering it's ethnic character forever, but internal groups of interests and post 45 mindset which isn't of Russian making, people like Boas or Frankfurt school weren't Russians. This brings to the another objective neglected by an author, that freedom is only for the strong people. Freedom means burden of responsibility, therefore weak can't be free as they'll sell their freedom in exchange for security, while author focuses on military, he forgets that system has to work on everyday basis, where people are selfish, evil, stupid, cowardly and how author proves, shortsighted and therefore system of absolute freedom can't exist. Anarchy will last one day, on the second day charismatic people in militias, capital or mafia will become political power. Author should focus more on Stirners influence on fascism or how institutions like Strength through Joy can have positive impact on society, therefore allowing for greater realm of freedom or how to utilize fascism for freedom but there's another thing, author knows fascism from Reddit, word fascism is equal to nationalism, which i hope is trick of getting attention as fascism is static ideology which originated from idea of state being arbitrary force between capital and unions in Italy which included nationalism and imperialism based on metaphysics of power, so it's hardly anything fascist in the book as "everything inside the state, nothing against the state, nothing beyond the state" simply can't be anarchist. Book is bad, but i gave it two stars because i like the cover and it's short.
July 25, 2023
More of a 2.5.
January 7, 2022
As the author mentions, "Anarcho-Fascism" feels a bit of a contradiction in terms, given the contrastingly decentralised/centralised nature of the two political philosophies, but once getting into the content of the book it appears as if the term was chosen specifically for lack of a better expression to describe the strategy of enabling the deconstruction of the State of modern day Sweden from its current monolithic government straining under the weight of its own hypocrisy into more localised governance based on traditional Swedish values stemming from its pagan and Christian past.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews