> Nationalist, sure.
That's pretty far-right by itself. The fact that they want mass deportations should solidify it for you though.
> 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]