In this thesis I look at how the notion of a culture war operates within the nationalistic, Swedish identitarian movement, in some contexts also referred to as the Nordic alternative right. I argue that despite the movement’s focus on culture, provocation and internet humor, they articulate an existential threat which calls for a fascist revolution and rebirth of a nation and its people. They aim to establish a dichotomy between a degenerate society and a nationalistic community. The latter is perceived as an authentic, biologically, culturally and territorially bound entity, while the former is blamed for wanting to destroy said natural community and replace it with a liberal, homogenous globalism. Utilizing the concept of “imagined community” and understanding nationalism as a discourse – as a text that writes itself in hopes of formulating a coherent and totalizing ideology in which the subject finds sense of the world and its place in it – I show how the identitarian movement very consciously aims to create a conspiratorial story of the impending death of the white race. Thus what is at stake is a perceived matter of life and death, which in itself becomes the primary tactic of legitimizing the movement’s existence and the primary method in attempting to interpellate subjects into their movement. Through the idea of metapolitics, an understanding of politics which centres around the notion of that the world is a battleground of ideas, the identitarian movement today primarily uses the internet and what they call “alternative medias” to both discredit the world they oppose and to spread their own nationalistic ideas. It is also on internet that their conspiratorial worldview is able to have its strongest impact, as it is a forum where opinions can be left unchallenged. Through conspiracy, the movement formulates an enemy which can be located in almost all domains of life, even within the subject themselves. In this context, the metapolitical objective is to, on one hand, through ideas of masculinity, whiteness and anti-feminism, call for a perceived true type of subject that is of fundamental value to the imagined community, while on the other hand use it as a weapon in the perceived culture war. I conclude by remarking that it is in their anti-feminism that their critique is most harmful and potent, as it speaks in the same language as what I perceive to be a contemporary dominant attitude in politics.