cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8915892
(original article in Swedish that reported this)
Posting this because I hadn't heard about it before and I'm probably not the only Mullvad user here, so might as well.
The party claims to stand for a "class-conscious populism" which according to party leader Markus Allard takes inspiration from marxist ideology and unites the "productive" classes of society against the "Transferiat", with the "Transferiat" being a term coined by Allard to describe the classes of society that lives off transfers that are a net negative for society such as those who, despite having an ability to work, live off social welfare benefits, as well as those who work "made-up services"[...]
The party differs from modern day left-wing parties by seeing the working class as co-dependent with people working in enterprise and business and instead sees the classes that "live off transfers", as specified, as a large economic net-negative and an obstacle for a functional society.
Their ideology is nonsense fake-marxist revisionism to redirect anger at capitalism and turn it against immigrants and people who need social welfare (though they do back some generally left oriented social policies, their main thing appears to be racism)
Even if you're comfortable with funding this, it still begs the question of just how trustworthy Mullvad actually is.
I guess this still beats any of the dozens of Israeli VPNs that definitely spy on you, but it's not great
That ideology sounds wild lol. Almost literal "national - socialism"?
The issue is rich people using undemocratic power to fund things like this. Which ironically sounds exactly like the “Transferiat” siphoning money and power from VPN users to funnel it into unwanted, fringe channels.
I was just thinking, the "transferiat" sound exactly like the wealthy ownership class
To be fair, much of this could be flak, deliberate distortion and slander by the neoliberal forces in Sweden. You can't trust the mainstream media not to trash anything that isn't neoliberal.
This all sounds great.
And I suspect a clear majority of Europeans are also against immigration or reducing how many refugees we take in thanks to fucking imperialist wars by the elite. There is nothing "far right" about this. I'm also for sending refugees back (EDIT: After it's safe to send them back!) and strictly limiting immigration in my country. The only real issue is that "remigration" is apparently code word for ethnic cleansing.
The larger issue is that this ideology sounds pretty half baked and too simple for the complexity of the current state of things.
Erm..."remigration" is the dogwhistle for concentration camps, though? I mean, you do you, but as far as classifying something as "far right"...talking about remigration easily tops that list ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From what I read remigration is ethnic cleansing by mass deportation. I hadn't even heard of the term before. I guess detention (or concentration?) camps are then inevitable too, we're seeing remigration right now in the US. Everyone just watches and lets it happen.
It should go without saying that I'm sarcastic and absolutely against such inhuman policies and that it's an entirely different thing from being against immigration and unlimited refugees in Europe. Different to the USA which is still mostly empty and an immigration country.
Sweden is now 8.1% Muslim. Even if most are moderate or non-practicing, that's well past a limit where you can expect "assimilation". Whatever that is supposed to mean, are we the Borg?
Does your own country and it's culture mean anything? Are you allowed to have and preserve a cultural identity? Does ideal diversity and internationalism mean homogenity globally? I don't think so.
So yeah, remigration is a far right dogwhistle, but calling anyone in favor of sensible limits on immigration/refugees a racist or xenophobe is a neoliberal talking point.
Anyway, climate change could create something like a billion refugees until the end of the century. That would make ideology pretty much irrelevant.
Yes, those are inevitable. Even the death camps within, it's not about detention. Like, the "real nazis" themselves wanted to "remigrate" jews to Madagascar. That was their original plan to get rid of them
Didn't work, so they needed to genocide. And that shit will happen again while we all watch and debate whether "remigration" is a far-right thing and whether donating to a literal nazi party makes you a nazi ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, just the small issue of genocide, but other than that, the rest of their policies are only moderate white supremacist ones.
Calling everything genocide robs the word of all meaning.
Ethnic cleansing is genocide. Genocide is a term that has an actual meaning, it's not just "bad things". Please educate yourself before correcting people on the term.
Ethnic cleansing can mean mass deportation, like in the US right now. You really think that genocide? Would deporting the 1.1 million Ukrainian refugees in Germany back to Ukraine be genocide?
Ethnic cleansing sounds vile enough. No need to call it genocide, which it isn't.
I'm not even sure I'd call the mass deportation in the US Ethnic Clensing. Part of the problem is it targets minorities, but not one specific minority, and the extent it targets minorities under cover of law is targeting non-citizens. Now, I think the whole thing is horrible, and bad policy. But it seems different to me from openly taking a specific group that are citizens and deporting them en masse.
Now - it's made worse by the wink and nod the US sort of used for decades and never actually made good / modern immigration policy.
I think it's possible to be someone who's for mass deportation of people not legally in a country and not be someone who supports genocide OR ethnic clensing. It can actually be a simple "rule of law" sort of position. I don't think MAGA is that sort of person, or at least many seem to be perfectly happy with ethnic clensing as an idea, but I also don't think they're actually happy to stop at non-citizens. It's just they haven't gotten through the "illegals" yet.
Maybe a good thread the needle would be if you're in the country for 10 years (or some amount of time) without getting deported, a "statute of limitations" has then expired and you're now a citizen. I'm sure that wouldn't pass many people's politics, but it would to my mind hold that if the government didn't care for that long, you can't be that much of an actual problem, and shouldn't be kicked out anymore because you've also likely integrated into communities etc.
From what I understand that's basically how it is in European liberal counties. There is a huge difference between immigration / green cards and asylum / refugees, the latter being an obligation and temporary. But it ends up the same, you won't really be kicked out.
Didn't the swiss banks enrich themselves with Nazi gold?
Sure, it was acceptable in the 1930s. But what does that have to do with what I wrote?