As far as I have followed the debate, Arnstad uses Griffins definition of facism as palingenetic ultranationalism. It is debated but remains one of the main definitions of fascism. Lööw, one of the experts quoted, used it in her phd thesis.

I am glad that Dick Harrison, another of the experts, gives a definition of fascism. According to him they would be fascists if and only if they marched on Stockholm in uniforms to violently over-throw the government. And that is fine as historical definitions go, however it is pointless if you want to identify fascism before a revolution.

Sverigedemokraterna was founded by neo-nazis and actual 1940ies nazis and had nazi-uniforms every now and then until the current gang of four gained control - and they have total control over their party. Since then they have donned uniforms, let the hair grow out and cleaned out the official documents, in order to not look like fascists. Their militia is kept at arms lenght, and it can only rarely be proven that organised Sverigedemokrater is active in death threats against opponents.

Of course ever so often they slip up and if it becomes a big thing the gang of four kick them out temporarily.

So yes, I think we have enough to conclude that they are indeed fascists and I think that using their official documents instead of their behaviour is a mistake.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se