Donation Controversy

I don't think what happened with Proton was controversial.

That's because they are wrong, immoral, and stupid. They're grovelling in the crumbs left over by the rich, and then getting pissed that there are other people groveling for the same crumbs.

Blaming immigrants is easy because you get an immediate base amongst racists (the immoral). They'll perk up at the sound of your dog whistles, and immediately start barking shit like "finally someone had the bravery to say what we're all thinking". That amplification of your message then reaches the reactionaries, who accurately look around at the world that is hell bent on destroying them, but are a little too dense to understand the web of systems that make up that world, and thus are eager for a simple explanation (the stupid). And once your message gets embedded in the zeitgeist from that lot, normal, relatively detached from politics people start hearing all this talk about immigration being a problem, and believe it (the wrong).

The same way you can't be frugal to make up for making poverty wages, you can't shrink the pool of disadvantaged workers to make them advantaged.

There is a very, very, very large gap between "open borders" and "keep all those disgusting foreigners out". I guarantee if you ask the average "immigration control activist" in most countries what the acceptable number of brown people to let into their country is, the answer is zero. Because the most active members of these movements are motivated by racism.

The Nazi’s were National Socialists, which is very obviously different from Marxism-Leninism, and was/is a very specific kind of evil. You can’t divorce the National from the Socialism, and that’s not my goal.

Go look into what the soviets did to trade unions.

> don't respect the culture

That's where it gets messy, at least in the States.

note: I have family in Sweden that are non-white but I've never discussed the issue as it felt a bit too "delicate"

It's nice to cherry pick inflammatory things that have been stated without their full context.

The context in this case is that he was directly asked:

"What about the people born in Sweden who commit so many crimes and do not integrate at all, live their whole lives on welfare, as we are seeing in the statistics it is mostly the second-generation who are most represented" (I am adlibbing and translating, but this is the question).

Allard then said, as you put it: that being born here is not protection.

Now, that is an extreme position, nobody else would say such a thing, and to be totally clear: it's not possible in the Swedish constitution to strip someone of citizenship (even if they have a claim to another by blood- which is the most common method of attaining any citizenship btw) - it's also against international law to strip someone of a citizenship to leave them stateless.

However there's only 30,000 people (of 2.1M) foreign born people in Sweden whom are otherwise stateless (Palestinians; Balkans who did not reapply after the fall of Yugoslavia), and there is a huge issue with crime and integration.

There are no solutions, but it's kind of valid for Swedish people to be looking at people to ask difficult and stomach-churning questions in some way.