Wikipedia of the party in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party#
Doesn't really sound all that far-right to me. Nationalist, sure.
I'm not Swedish though, so I would be interested in the thoughts of those who are actually affected by Örebropartiet's policies.
>Doesn't really sound all that far-right to me.
To me too, then I got to the leaders quote on TV: "We must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense."
Yeah, okay. I know some politicians who speak like that, I feel I get the picture.
I think you'd be surprised at how quickly that sentiment has moved from the far-right to close to the center. People are (rightly, in my opinion) pretty upset at their governments for letting mass migration happen with pretty much only downsides for their actual citizens. People are all about the idea of helping the downtrodden when it's just an ideal, but when they realize it's having negative consequences for them that can easily change.
How can you be sure the opinion moved to the center and not that the center moved to the right?
Migration is all a distraction anyway. Brown people existing doesn't hurt you. Whenever you think they drive up rents or whatever, that has nothing to do with the brown people, that has everything to do with the system that sets rents.
Yes, increasing demand for housing and increasing supply of labor definitely does nothing for both salaries and housing prices
What happens to supply of housing and demand for labor, and why?
Look up the Curley Effect for an explainer of what might be going on. I’m not Swedish but feel it may be worth examining given their rhetoric.
Sorry I don't get the reference
Perhaps those problems have other causes.
Supply and demand economic denialism is dangerously widespread.
What is supply and demand economic denialism?
[flagged]
Can you please not post in the flamewar style? You crossed into that here and it's the opposite of what we're trying for on this site. You're welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
they can exist @ home
Considering the history of labor unions and their support for the banning of Asian citizenship in the US, I think the right frame is that migration support / opposition has something to do with other things but not entirely. There are only a few ways to come to the US and the employment-based approach is probably the most widely used by unconnected foreigners seeking to live in the US and that pathway is intended to be abolished by Senator Bernie Sanders with no replacement planned. I think it's hard to describe that senator as particularly right-wing.
Likewise, it was a labour union in Georgia that lobbied to get Koreans deported from the US. It should be unsurprising that those who hold to the Lump of Labor economic school should oppose immigration and that's quite popular among the left-wing.
> How can you be sure the opinion moved to the center and not that the center moved to the right?
I'm pretty sure he meant that what used to be a far-right view is now considered mainstream. Which is true, since even the EU Parliament has now begun passing laws vs migrants, and governments all across Western Europe are now taking steps against migrants.
> Brown people existing doesn't hurt you.
Correct, and I'm one of them. Unfortunately our abhorrent culture, traditions and sometimes values hurt erstwhile peaceful societies.
[flagged]
Religious flamewar is not allowed on HN so please don't post like this here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Brown people existing doesn't hurt you.
Why did you feel the need to say "Brown people" instead of migrants? Are you trying to play the racist card? Poles are white and when they migrated en mass to Britain they were also making locals very unhappy.
We all know they are not going to expel Canadians.
Why not?
I provided you with an example and yet you continue with something unrelated again.
From a US perspective, just up until a decade ago, it was a sentiment that left-center perspective that people like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton had.
I was caught quite off-guard by this new "open borders" perspective. It doesn't seem sustainable at all.
It’s not, it’s only the far-left’s desire
I think, all pretty recently (atleast in the 'States), there's been much news and noise about the abuse and fraud of these systems designed to help the downtrodden.
Now whether that's all true, has always been true, is propaganda...whatever, but it's easy for me to understand why sentiment has been changing as the spotlight is focused more and more on the abuse of the systems as opposed to the benefits.
I also think there's some 'hierarchy of needs' going on here, where as the economy shifts and more and more Americans are struggling to afford housing, groceries, and other necessities, it's easy to feel like you should be putting yourself first over strangers. Combine that with the prior point, and you have a great recipe to build resentment. Selfish, maybe, but I can understand how you get there.
This is NOT to say 'There is no xenophobia' or anything...racism in general is alive and well in the USA... but I have pretty sound-minded people around me starting to echo this mindset, and this is my best understanding of what's been brewing.
At least from a US perspective, the problem is that the downsides are the deliberate policy goals of the political class. Immigration was but one tool used to achieve them, and now the immigrants themselves serve as a convenient visceral scapegoat for releasing the grassroots political pressure. We finally built enough political capital to do something about the economic vise most Americans find themselves in, only for it to be squandered on performative vice signalling.
We were sold one thing and got another.
[flagged]
To be fair, it already mostly exists.
Its 4chan politically incorrect. https://boards.4chan.org/pol/
And yeah, its as terrible as you can possibly imagine. And then even more so.
A "free speech" HN is just HN. It would end up with the same cryptic way of describing replacement theory, because it's not for the purpose of evading censors. It's for the purpose of cosplaying having "dangerous opinions". The idea of left-wing censorship on Paul Graham's website is a joke.
No. That sentiment didn't "move toward the center".
What happened is that the far-right -- and, lets not use euphemisms like "the far right" here, we're talking about fascists and literal Nazis (ethno-fascism is Nazism) -- have successfully taken control of much of our mass media. They've also more or less captured the government of one of the world's super powers. Those two things put together have allowed them to make their views appear mainstream.
This is exactly what happened during the 1920s and 1930s prior to World War II. And similarly, you were finding Nazi views expressed openly and proudly and being given a veneer of respectability. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Squ...)
But they are no less extreme now than they were then. They are still fascist and Nazi views. And they still ought to be abhorrent to anyone who considers themselves a decent human being.
It's beyond incredible that anyone thinks that the far right has taken control of the mass media. It's clearly the left that has control of most of the media, which makes sense. People in cities tend to be on the left. Journalism majors tend to be on the left.
This reminds me of the Rwandan genocide as well. For months before, the radios were always talking about how the Tutsi ethnic group were parasites.
You're getting downvotes, but Rwanda has become a textbook study of how racist stresses were amplified to create the conditions for a genocide.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1135902
Another point of the Rwandan genocide that's important to remember, is the party who eventually committed the genocide spent months talking about how the other side was about to use extreme violence and they were really the victim. This allowed them to preemptively use violence "in self defense."
Highly recommend the Lions Led by Donkeys podcast on it - https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-lions-led-by-donkeys-podc...
Funny, I usually hear that sentiment from left wing sources complaining about billionaires.
Interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I think they're saying the left and the right are the same
Ah, horseshoe theory!
Well I find the 'Eat the rich' slogan equally disgusting.
The billionaries don't need/care about sympathy And most importantly, the billionares don't do hard work for minimun pay.
Won’t somebody please think of the poor oppressed billionaires!
[dead]
[flagged]
It's possible to support all of the same policies without referring to human beings as "parasites," and I don't think we should be flippant about what language is used. It's relevant. It reflects a state of mind.
I personally do not ever see myself voting for (or otherwise indirectly supporting) a politician that speaks like that, regardless of whether you can steelman it with more neutral language.
Isn't that what every politician who ended up doing an ethnic cleansing said?
Spot the odd one out:
> Some of its key issues include lowered wages for politicians, ending the tax payer funding of various sculptures, monuments and art, large scale remigration, a stricter immigration policy, and free dental care.
To understand why there might be a desire to limit spending on art;
There was a recent case where city of Malmo was building a hospital; during the building of the hospital it was decided that a splice of the oldest tree in the world would be installed.
A very expensive life-support system was developed and an enormous amount of money paid for the splice. (not including the life support system, which was also an inordinate amount).
The tree didn't take, and needs to be replaced.
It's called "Spruce Time": https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/region-skane-har-lag...
For context, from wiki:
> Remigration is a far-right concept referring to ethnic cleansing via mass deportation of non-white minority populations [...] to their place of racial ancestry
[flagged]
> The majority of people to be remigrated if the party succeeds are not even citizens.
And what of the ones who are citizens?
[flagged]
Trivia: there is a country in America where people can be stripped of their nationality for "treason", which amounts to go agaisnt the government. This means people can be left without civil rights, and can't enter the country if they were abroad.
All born inside the country, born from both national parents or naturalized are elegible. This year they declared acquiring the nationality of another country also made you elegible to be barren from their native country.
Nicaragua is really something weird, but all humans are capable of dehumanizing other people.
Why only the naturalized ones?
Stripping of naturalization in the US is usually associated with immigration fraud.
Terrorist/Nazi Concentration Camp Guard lies on immigration forms, decades later is found out and gets the boot
> The majority of people to be remigrated if the party succeeds are not even citizens
The fact that people can say this without immediately noticing the problem is absolutely mind-blowing.
They know the problem. Never believe, even for a minute, that right wingers are unaware of the depravity of the things they say. They just want to pretend that it’s not a problem. And indeed you can see in their reply - they love the idea of a two tiered society where some people can be stripped of citizenship and rights arbitrarily.
Because those people never should have received citizenship to begin with. The asylum system have been abused to no end. To get to Sweden you have to pass trough many many stable countries in which there is no war. Beggars can't be choosers, so if they are choosers and want the good stuff - they are not real beggars.
Look how the Gulf states deal with citizenship and they manage to control much bigger immigrant relative to the native populations.
The only real refugees in Europe are Ukrainians.
> Look how the Gulf states deal with citizenship and they manage to control much bigger immigrant relative to the native populations.
The gulf states, really? Why am I not surprised that you point to one of the largest modern day slave states as an example. I will not grant you the assumption of ignorance. For anyone else following this conversation, ReptileMan here is pointing to this system - https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/modern-day-slavery-... - one widely recognized as slavery - as an example of a good way to control large immigrant populations.
In which city will you feel safer walking at night in the heavy migrant underclass areas - dubai or stockholm?
If the gulf states are your north star, then you are straightforwardly advocating for a return of systemic wage theft, indentured servitude and slavery, all under threat of execution.
Which of those do you most prefer?
Would you also like an ethnic caste system, or should it be based solely on national origin, or a combination?
Or perhaps the original European model, where only non-christians may be enslaved?
[dead]
[flagged]
The immigrants they are specifically looking to remove are middle eastern and african. they certainly dont have canadians in mind when coming up with these policies.
the west is incredibly extractive of the rest of the world and the “mass migration” from the rest of the world is a result of that. want people to go back home? stop bombing their countries. stop stealing their resources. stop abducting and assassinating their leaders. stop propping up governments that sell out the country for a bag of cash with dollar signs on the side.
I'm open to this argument. How much bombing and assassinating is Sweden actually doing?
i dont think it’s that useful to think about it in terms of individual countries. like its a nice rhetorical trick to go “look at how innocent sweden is”, ignoring the fact they are indeed a nato member, but they are part of the greater western capitalist bloc aka “global north” that benefits from these actions. we suppress wages in the rest of the world to keep manufacturing cheap (and then wonder why there are no factory jobs anymore…), we install leaders who sell our companies natural resources for pennies on the dollar, we control the flow of global trade by mandating that goods need to trade in our currencies.
like let me put it to you this way - you buy a shirt made in vietnam. how much would that cost if it was made in sweden? well why shouldnt that money go to vietnam if it was rightly made there?
It's not trick. We weren't before invoking collective responsibility. But if now we are, fine. (Leave it alone that Sweden has been in NATO for, what, 18 months? ) Two follow-up questions, then:
1. Does the "east" have the same responsibility, or should the "west" bear it all?
2. Are Middle Eastern and African countries that much more peaceful than western countries? If so, then I suppose you are right. If not, should we at least consider that as sort of an offset to the responsibility?
As far as the shirt made in Vietnam goes: I think that the manufacturer in Vietnam is getting paid for it. Am I wrong?
Does Sweden have a single Canadian there under 'asylum' policies?
Yeah, sure, people probably wouldn't care if they were Canadian, because they wouldn't be committing crimes at far higher rates, wouldn't be pushing for more religious rule, and the majority wouldn't be on welfare. That's not what's happening though.
As for your second paragraph - do you really think the governments of the countries these people are coming from are any better? Should every US citizen that wants be able to immigrate to Afghanistan and take a good portion of their GDP as welfare? What about Japan? Should US and Chinese citizens be able to move there if they want and relatively quickly become the majority, right? They need the population, no?
I certainly don't agree with a lot of our Middle East policies, but that doesn't mean European governments should throw open their doors to mass migration. Governments are supposed to exist to help their own citizens. Sometimes that means bombing someone. Sometimes that's the right thing to do, sometimes it's not, but it's pretty damned clear mass migration from third world countries isn't helping their citizens.
half or more of the governments are there because we put them there or they are the result of some mess we made.
Amazing comment.
Accepting for a minute that the comment on economic extraction is true (it isn’t), you are admitting that mass migration from low-trust/dysfunctional societies is in fact a deserved punishment for “the West”. I wish more people spoke with this clarity when it comes to immigration debates, because it cuts through all the noise about needing lots of different cuisine options.
[flagged]
To be fair arguably there is no other country in the world which benefited as much economically from its interactions with Nazi Germany and face so little consequences for it.
Ah grokipedia, the fountain of unbiased knowledge.
It’s pretty radicle to remove people who have lived in your country for generations.
[flagged]
> Which one is less biased?
Wikipedia > Slopipedia.
xAI's Grokipedia is 100% more biased, given who controls it and its known tendency to manipulate results. Finally, there are lots of cases where it completely fails. And I didn't even get to the "porn" stuff. Hell, even it's creator says it's trash.
Following your lead, I haven’t researched Örebro’s proposed policies. But I would find it surprising if “large scale remigration” really was scoped to an everyman’s definition of “few years”. I would expect that their targets for “large scale” exceed three or four years’ worth of immigration.
Even if you scope it out to "everyone that's not a citizen or has the equivalent of a green card," is that so evil? If a country accepts immigrants they should be able to send them back at will unless they become citizens. That shouldn't be controversial. You can argue if it's a good or bad policy, of course, but it's not ethically wrong to do so. Yes, they'll be in more danger and have worse lives when they go back to wherever they came from, but again - a country should exist to serve its citizens, not the entire world. It's not sustainable.
> large scale remigration
which is literally kicking out people who don't look or sounds like me, out of the country.
Whenever that has happened it has been rather bad for most parties.
What about kicking people out who don’t believe in equal rights for women?
Because, that is pretty core to the Swedish cultural identity.
[flagged]
Immigration sounds good for Sweden then, because they have a fertility rate of 1.42, well below replacement.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/25/sweden-pm-ivf-...
Define "good." The people immigrating aren't suddenly going to behave like Swedes - we've seen that. Will the geographic entity that is Sweden maintain or grow the population? Sure. Will it still be Sweden? No. If the majority of people are from, say, the middle east, it'll be run like a country there. I don't think that'll be good for the existing Swedes.
If you could somehow pick the best and brightest from those regions to immigrate - sure, great, probably good for your country. Existing countries are the way they are because of their people. When you shift your demographics to such a degree, your country will also become that. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. It's the same base concept that explains why the US policy in the middle east has failed so badly over decades. The people there largely don't want US-style democracy. Some do, sure, but the majority either don't care or like the system they have.
> The people immigrating aren't suddenly going to behave like Swedes
As somebody from a country near Sweden, I sure as hell hope not.
What will the country become?
Immigration is not a solution to low fertility. It might be a solution to labor being expensive, particularly if you’re a capitalist, but it doesn’t solve the problem of low fertility among a native population.
Robots are also advancing fast. They have all the upsides and none of the downsides of mass migration.
[flagged]
> "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."
- Markus Allard
Yes they are
We want everyone here to be exactly like us, but we do recognize we have bad teeth.
[flagged]
Split from: Left Party
So basically the left but with a stricter view on immigration?
I think mass deportation of people with wrong skin color goes beyond "stricter view on immigration"
>large scale remigration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration
It's not based on skin color though, its migration status.
Even people of the same complexion can be a net negative to the country as they feel the majority of recent immigrants are.
they probably forget all those other promises once they get to power
Source that every single left wing party in the 90s wanted to get rid of every single person of a non-white background?
[flagged]
Cool, what about the ethnic cleansing part? Is your family in favor of getting rid of every non-white person as well? That's what this party supports.
[flagged]
>In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish." [54]
from the wikipedia page
What? That's what the party is in favor of, and the thing you said every single left wing party from the 90s supported. Why can't you back up what you say? Is it because the Democratic Party did not support ethnic cleansing in the 90s?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Your anecdote is not data and your family's views are not representative of left wing political positions.
That's fine, I was offering my opinion. For some reason people on HN want a double blind study that's been re-run 300 times since the 60s and stamped by the president for proof of anything these days.
> Nationalist, sure.
That's pretty far-right by itself. The fact that they want mass deportations should solidify it for you though.
It's definitely possible to be a left-wing nationalist
I mean it's definitely possible to call yourself that, but I'd argue no, it's not possible to actually be that.
Famously, Mao Zedong was neither left-wing, nor a nationalist, right?
Then you have never studied communist eastern countries and their nationalistic policies.
https://socialhistoryportal.org/news/articles/110357
No-one defines what they mean by "nationalist" so it could apply to a rock.
That takes a form more like "let's make our country the best country ever" than "let's kick out everyone with a different skin color"
[flagged]
> celebrate that culture.
The party explicitly votes against paying for local culture
> wanting to protect
There is a big difference for wanting to protect culture, as in celebrate, educate and promote, and removing people from the land that has that culture. I would say the two are orthogonal.
For example, a huge influence on the British music scene comes from either getting pissed in Hamburg, or music coming from the Caribbean. None of which could have happened if people were dead set on "re-migration" (ie removing non "white" people.)
You can protect your “culture” without deporting all non-White people. If your culture can’t be protected without that, maybe that culture doesn’t need protecting.
[flagged]
> I don’t think it’s a matter of “deporting all the non-white people.”
This is what the party leader has said they want to do. You really should look into what you're defending, because you're currently defending a party that wants ethnic cleansing.
[flagged]
Is that so? Instead of throwing a fit and insulting people, you could've just spent 30 seconds googling to see what the party leader himself says:
> In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."
Or is the party leader lying about his own party? How deep does this conspiracy go?
And you know very well that he said all of this in the context of families who for years have refused to integrate in favor of sustaining themselves and their children exclusively on crime and systemic welfare fraud. Their party manifesto clearly elaborates on this topic. You are just highlighting an isolated part of his spoken paragraph while sweeping all the rest in under the carpet hoping that unfamiliar readers will take your word for it. Frantically spamming the thread with "It's ethnic cleansing!!" and "They want to deport every non-white person from Sweden!!" doesn't change the facts.
I'm a non-white non-native who came to Sweden with my family just over 35 years ago. Go ahead and ask me if I or my family fear their policies, and I'll tell you why we don't. Or, just relativize and say something like "well that's not the same thing" and I'll tell you the real reason why my family and I aren't the same thing as the demographic your comments relate to.
This is quite literally what they said: "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."
They want to deport anyone that isn't Swedish enough, even if they're native-born Swedes.
"They" in this context seems to be, Somalian living on the social welfare state. Not "every non-white person".
> Why won't the Liberals push for deporting 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?
So, it sounds like people who showed up and are leaching off the state without giving anything back. This will put a strain on these systems for the people it was actually designed to support.
[flagged]
Interesting for a European party to choose red and black as colors and be right of center.
"The party has also been described as both right-wing populist and left-wing populist as well as left-conservative."
Well that clears things up
Lol, that quote really reads like "we have terminal direction-brain and can't place these people in our arbitrary categories"
Or: We're cherry picking ideas from all sides where applicable.
The horseshoe still going strong
Fascists always incude left wing policies to try to appeal to the "working man".
There's a reason the Nazis included "socialist" in their name. It's not because they give a crap about the plebs.
The Nazis actually did make life better for many, unfortunately.
How is this not flagged??
Briefly. It’s important to remember that nearly all of those people ended up significantly worse off in the longer term.
[dead]