Personally, I'd rather not have a company I work for police my social media and political activities just so that they fit with what the company desires. That would make me quit as I value a separation between my personal and work activities.
That said, the fact that the person involved is the founder of this company (not a regular employee) does change things though. I don't know anything about the politics involved, but (with the exception of recent American executives) I would imagine you would want the people who run your company to be more neutral as to prevent controversy (or at least do so quietly).
it was a mistake to respond, over 90% of the controversy is performative as it nearly always is. the ideologues will posture and claim that they are dropping mullvad while being unlikely to follow through.
most people wouldn't even know the controversy happened nor care. with the response, you now trigger various human instincts that draw attention, promote further gossiping and wondering where the fire is with all the smoke.
I'm really sad about it but I'm not going to renew Mullvad once the 6 months I already payed for are up.
I'm fine supporting companies that have people with poliical views I initially interested in Mullvad for political reasons and one of the founders giving a significant amount of money to a political group that wants to restrict the rights of other people is too much for me.
Not everyone is cynical. Some of us have actual values we act on.
Its worth considering that this is a left wing populist party that doesn’t like immigration, and what was actually said (the major controversy) is that even if you are born in Sweden, if you commit crimes and do not make any effort to be Swedish: you probably shouldn’t be here.
How this is represented by people is different than that, and its hard for people who don’t speak Swedish to listen to the original sources, but be assured that in Sweden there is an actual party founded by Nazi sympathisers and it is the second most voted for party.
I get not wanting to support someone you think has immoral views, but check the facts first before blacklisting a company that is filled with people trying to push for a more open, private yet transparent internet.
I read his blog and did some research before posting. I'm sure I don't get the intricacies of Swedish politics but anyone talking about the West being invaded by migrants is a big red flag for me. Maybe I would have had more tolerence about it in the past but my home country (US) has masked goons rounding people up and I've gotten burned from so many people who claimed to want sensible migration policies only to turn out to be virulent racists when they got in power.
Also, there are ways to keep companies from using migrant labor to undercut wages that don't involve mass deportation.
You should read my other comments to get a bit more context of why this is an issue in Sweden.
The situation in the US is so absurdly different. It would be like having an opinion on Chinese consumption economics because the local states sales tax was altered. (to use an american example).
> You should read my other comments to get a bit more context of why this is an issue in Sweden.
I have.
I'm sorry but I'm just not persuaded and you don't seem to be engaging with anything I've actually said. I get that your from Sweden. I think we just have different political views.
I am in a similar situation and I am out from this point as well. Mullvad does a lot of wonderful work, but I think debating whether Örebropartiet's positions are reasonable or not misses the point. Head over to Allard's Twitter feed [1], as he has not yet published a coherent manifesto anywhere from what I can tell. If you do not read Swedish, get some sort of translation tool going. Keep in mind, this is how he wants to appear to the world.
Sure, you find the odd reasonably put politic position. But, mostly, it is memes. Screaming. Ranting. Insults. Calling the head of the Swedish police a "crying bitch". Retweets of posts from who are not even shy in terms of being bigots and racists. The man is a toxic toad and I would rather have seen him paid to shut up than anything else. Yes, we need diverse viewpoints to be heard and we should be respectful and careful to shut them down. But, Allard is not this person and he is just ruining public discourse even further and waging an insane culture war (in my mum's constituency at that). Call me old-fashioned, but I expect representatives to at least try to strive towards holding morals and behaviour above the mean of society.
I have read Mullvad's blog post, but not Berntsson' yet (it is bloody long and I am at work, but skimming it, I saw nothing arguing why "public discourse arson" is warranted and just "something needs to be done, this is something"), so maybe I am missing some context. But if the answer to your question is "Bank-roll Allard", maybe it is time to take a step back and ask yourself what on Earth your question was in the first place? Because it seems to me like you are playing with fire and risk burning all that we hold dear to the ground. Do your views not have a Johan Norberg-like [2] character (something very rare, a Swedish Libertarian that has contributed to public discourse for over twenty years) that you can support instead? Or is the direction you want to see only professed by people that behave very close to what I would describe as the very worst our species have to offer?
A mistake from a public relations perspective, but I think taking an explicit stance against deplatforming and self-censorship is consistent with Mullvad's stated mission.
"Mullvad will continue to keep its values and mission separate from the broader views of its founders." - the sentence immediately following a link to Daniel's soapbox blog post
Obscura by definition is the same or better than Mullvad because of the multi-party relay. Similar with iCloud Private Relay but that's only for Safari which is inadequate.
Nym looks promising but mixnets haven't been tested as much as the Tor network.
I don't see how that particular political expression is a risk to their VPN's stance. This is a lot of nothing; would have been better to ignore the screeching from Bluesky.
In fact I would argue that if he was cancelled like the mob wanted it would reflect badly on mullvad,
If you cave to a bunch of Twitter warriors am I supposed to trust you from keeping my privacy when the government comes knocking?
The party has been variously characterised as left-wing and right-wing, as well as populist, nationalist and conservative.
Some key issues for the Örebro Party locally include strong secularism, a 30-hour workweek with retained pay, lowered wages for politicians, expanded social housing, abolishing preschool-fees, making public transport free of charge,[3] ending taxpayer funding of what it sees as wasteful sculptures, monuments and art and introducing free dental care.[4][5] Nationally the party has set out large-scale remigration, closing the Swedish borders to immigration, a stricter assimilation policy and ending taxes on energy and fuel as some of its key issues.
It sounds like the usual far right bottom line dressed up with a bunch of “Free Pizza” promises to cover it with a veneer.
Personally I wish people like his had the balls to stop hiding behind that kind of thing, we all know what someone is about when “immigration is the main problem” in their viewpoint.
Own it. Or if it’s something to be ashamed of… accept the shame.
Failure to recognize immigration as a problem for a sizeable chunk of the population--rightly or wrongly--ensures that they will fall pray to demagogues and will never again trust those who repeatedly blew them off.
Progressives fuck this up continually across the policy spectrum, by having no answer other than "no you're wrong/immoral/stupid" to people who express concerns in categories that have strong orthodoxy requirements.
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.
Sorry, you speak about this as though you are an American (not sure if you are) but you can't hope to understand the realities of living in a country that just injected 1/10th of its population in a decade.
The demographic of the largest cities in Sweden has changed from 17% foreign born in 1986 to over 55% today- in a single generation. (Malmö, were I live as a migrant myself).
At the same time, the healthcare service is struggling, the police can't cope with the crime situation and there are gangs shooting people and grenades blowing up apartments everywhere.
AND: At the same time, the Geni coefficient remains remarkably low, and income inequality much lower than the US, so this "blame the rich" makes sense in the UK and US, but it's not the problem that Sweden has.
Sweden has mismanaged a lot of its public services (training, then underpaying doctors - leading to them going private, then there being a shortage of doctors which leads to the government paying huge contractor rates for those doctors - which is hugely expensive, so nurses try to avoid you seeing a doctor - which leads to less preventative healthcare, and more serious issues, which is more strain on the healthcare service).
It's not uniquely immigrants fault, they have a role to play in the welfare system and being hugely overrepresented in crime, but it's really not rich peoples fault.
Not really, this looks more like pre-1990s leftism that you see from people like Caesar Chavez. Broadly redistributive policies towards the working class and a strict curbing of immigration as a source of exploited labor underclass for corporations to fatten their margins. There's a reason Bernie called open borders a "Koch brothers proposal".
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.
You seem to have decided that people who are against immigration are stupid, racist, authoritarian, and evil: by all.means, that's an understandable bias, as the most noticeable part of most countries' populations who hold this view indeed appear to be what you think. However, it is still a bias, that leads to you engaging in the kind of self-righteous, irrational rage that might make you feel like you're standing up for the oppressed when you're actually not.
Most people seem to conflate immigrants with refugees, which is false (refugees are a small minority of all immigrants), to see immigrants as poor, hard-working people who just need one chance, which is also false (most immigrants are skilled workers, generally not the poor of their country, and most immigrants you see are probably family members of other skilled workers), and to view immigration as a leftist cause (again not true, immigration is something that's mostly lobbied for by corporate interests).
But many more people feel opposed to migration for entirely different reasons: personal hardships directly due to immigration (loss of job or house), political leanings (pro-working class can mean anti-immigration), social cohesion/sustainability/community considerations, etc.
Not empathising with those people and having a reductionist view of immigration, which often stems from simply being shielded from any negative effects of it, as most on this forum are, lets people take a position like yours, which further polarises society and plays into the cards of the powerful you seem to oppose.
We probably agree on almost every political view apart from this.
Only in Europe could a party with socialist-leaning values on every single issue except immigration be branded 'far right'. This is the case in every single European country for some reason.
Marine Le Pen's party in France leans socialist on econ but is painted as 'far right' for the same reason.
Congrats on falling for hundred year old propaganda. Fascism loves dancing around in the flayed skin of the socialism it violently represses. Go look into what they did to trade unions if you think the Nazis were some Worker's Party.
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.
> We have nurtured a culture of radical tolerance.
Play radical games, win radical prizes. The last place I want my money going is towards radical authoritarianism, a cause that I thought Mullvad would thoroughly oppose.
> Self-censorship out of fear is an even bigger dampener than direct censorship.
Bullshit. Self-censorship is a self-preservation mechanism, a VPN doesn't change the consequences of saying illegal or offensive things. Direct censorship is an abuse of the monopoly on power, and much more inhumane than just feeling insecure about your edgy ideas being attached to your identity.
The "radical tolerance" thing is also a little ironic, since the biggest controversy with the party that the founder donated to is that the party isn't tolerant of people from different backgrounds or nationalities...
Tolerant is the wrong word to choose because tolerant doesn't mean "accepting" it means... to tolerate.
And the most extreme position they have stated is that "it doesn't matter if you're born here, if you commit crimes and don't respect the culture you should probably leave".
That is an extreme position, but it's not as black as people seem to paint it, which implies heavily that the party is just simply racist against non-swedes.
The actual racist party is the second most voted for party in Sweden, I think because of how intolerant the society has been about talking about the issues caused by migration. That is my own opinion though, as a migrant, living in the city with the most migrants in Sweden.
Well, Sweden had to recently ban cousin marriage (it wasn't an issue before) but aside from that (which is a problem for the health service, but not for me personally), there are very differing perspectives towards homosexuality and Womens rights, and it is the second generation that feel most entitled to expressing their dissatisfaction at Swedens attitude towards those topics.
I might be a migrant myself, but I have strong feelings about this too.
'In 2026 Örebro Party leader Markus Allard sparked controversy on several occasions. In a debate hosted by Studio3 with Liberal member of parliament Martin Melin, Allard asked: "why won't the Liberals push for deporting 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?" and in the same debate said that "Sweden belongs to the Swedes. We have to make sure that we take care of our own damn people and we must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense."
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."'
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.
Constitutions and laws are no protection for scapegoats once extremists gain power. Anyone who knows 20th century history knows where "we must deport these damn parasites" ends.
If they are called "social welfare-Somalis" (where do social welfare-Swedes get deported to?), if they are not included in "the Swedes" and "our own damn people", if "even if they are born in Sweden, [...] they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish", then integration is not what he wants.
Ok, but then you're saying Sweden is on the hook, in perpetuity, for an entire family tree of a stream of people that seems to never end unless racists take control of migration (which is what has happened now in Sweden).
Honestly, I really understand what you mean, but offering no solution and then talking down anyone who dares talk about it is exactly how extremists got support here in the first place.
If you're not living in sweden please keep in mind: this kind of demographic change is totally unprecedented in all of Europe and in all of history. In less than a 1/3rd of a generation, a decade, 10% of the population of a country was artificially added.
Such a thing has not happened historically unless a country was conquered. -- even then, it took 500 years for Skåne to be Swedish (in fact, many Swedes joke that they're still Danish). Just to say that a cultural shift of such magnitude is going to cause some tension no matter what, nobody has done it at this scale.
To then have those same people and their children, then, cause a disproportionate amount of violent and sexual crime while also being a disproportionate financial cost to the country: absolutely needs some kind of answer.
I'm not saying that Örebro Partiet or SD have that answer, but I sympathise with people who are tired of seeing this happening plainly with their own eyes, and being branded as racists, fascists or nationalists for clumsily trying to talk about it without the right verbiage because they've never had to exercise these kind of thoughts before.
The key observation missing from the conversation here is that you're being judged by Americans, where damn near everybody (save ~1% Native Americans) belongs to "an entire family tree" of immigrants. Race relations are one of those things that the US catches a lot of shit for because we've had to deal with it for the entirety of our nation's history, which lets us look at the attitudes alarmingly prevalent in Europe and go, "hey, that's like when my granddaddy was burning crosses in his neighbor's lawn. That's fucked up".
I think the other lesson we could draw from America is that we shouldn't let everyone in, they'll kill us, take our place and feel bad about it a few hundred years later... maybe.
Personally, I'd rather not have a company I work for police my social media and political activities just so that they fit with what the company desires. That would make me quit as I value a separation between my personal and work activities.
That said, the fact that the person involved is the founder of this company (not a regular employee) does change things though. I don't know anything about the politics involved, but (with the exception of recent American executives) I would imagine you would want the people who run your company to be more neutral as to prevent controversy (or at least do so quietly).
I don't want the founders and operators of my free-expression tool to be neutral.
I want them to be strongly biased in favor of free expression.
But they take my money and use it restrict how people dress, how they pray, what customs they are allowed to follow, what they teach their kids.
The agenda they support is anti-free-expression, and that's worse than neutral.
it was a mistake to respond, over 90% of the controversy is performative as it nearly always is. the ideologues will posture and claim that they are dropping mullvad while being unlikely to follow through.
most people wouldn't even know the controversy happened nor care. with the response, you now trigger various human instincts that draw attention, promote further gossiping and wondering where the fire is with all the smoke.
I'm really sad about it but I'm not going to renew Mullvad once the 6 months I already payed for are up.
I'm fine supporting companies that have people with poliical views I initially interested in Mullvad for political reasons and one of the founders giving a significant amount of money to a political group that wants to restrict the rights of other people is too much for me.
Not everyone is cynical. Some of us have actual values we act on.
Its worth considering that this is a left wing populist party that doesn’t like immigration, and what was actually said (the major controversy) is that even if you are born in Sweden, if you commit crimes and do not make any effort to be Swedish: you probably shouldn’t be here.
How this is represented by people is different than that, and its hard for people who don’t speak Swedish to listen to the original sources, but be assured that in Sweden there is an actual party founded by Nazi sympathisers and it is the second most voted for party.
I get not wanting to support someone you think has immoral views, but check the facts first before blacklisting a company that is filled with people trying to push for a more open, private yet transparent internet.
I read his blog and did some research before posting. I'm sure I don't get the intricacies of Swedish politics but anyone talking about the West being invaded by migrants is a big red flag for me. Maybe I would have had more tolerence about it in the past but my home country (US) has masked goons rounding people up and I've gotten burned from so many people who claimed to want sensible migration policies only to turn out to be virulent racists when they got in power.
Also, there are ways to keep companies from using migrant labor to undercut wages that don't involve mass deportation.
You should read my other comments to get a bit more context of why this is an issue in Sweden.
The situation in the US is so absurdly different. It would be like having an opinion on Chinese consumption economics because the local states sales tax was altered. (to use an american example).
> You should read my other comments to get a bit more context of why this is an issue in Sweden.
I have.
I'm sorry but I'm just not persuaded and you don't seem to be engaging with anything I've actually said. I get that your from Sweden. I think we just have different political views.
I am in a similar situation and I am out from this point as well. Mullvad does a lot of wonderful work, but I think debating whether Örebropartiet's positions are reasonable or not misses the point. Head over to Allard's Twitter feed [1], as he has not yet published a coherent manifesto anywhere from what I can tell. If you do not read Swedish, get some sort of translation tool going. Keep in mind, this is how he wants to appear to the world.
[1]: https://xcancel.com/markus_allard
Sure, you find the odd reasonably put politic position. But, mostly, it is memes. Screaming. Ranting. Insults. Calling the head of the Swedish police a "crying bitch". Retweets of posts from who are not even shy in terms of being bigots and racists. The man is a toxic toad and I would rather have seen him paid to shut up than anything else. Yes, we need diverse viewpoints to be heard and we should be respectful and careful to shut them down. But, Allard is not this person and he is just ruining public discourse even further and waging an insane culture war (in my mum's constituency at that). Call me old-fashioned, but I expect representatives to at least try to strive towards holding morals and behaviour above the mean of society.
I have read Mullvad's blog post, but not Berntsson' yet (it is bloody long and I am at work, but skimming it, I saw nothing arguing why "public discourse arson" is warranted and just "something needs to be done, this is something"), so maybe I am missing some context. But if the answer to your question is "Bank-roll Allard", maybe it is time to take a step back and ask yourself what on Earth your question was in the first place? Because it seems to me like you are playing with fire and risk burning all that we hold dear to the ground. Do your views not have a Johan Norberg-like [2] character (something very rare, a Swedish Libertarian that has contributed to public discourse for over twenty years) that you can support instead? Or is the direction you want to see only professed by people that behave very close to what I would describe as the very worst our species have to offer?
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Norberg
A mistake from a public relations perspective, but I think taking an explicit stance against deplatforming and self-censorship is consistent with Mullvad's stated mission.
"Mullvad will continue to keep its values and mission separate from the broader views of its founders." - the sentence immediately following a link to Daniel's soapbox blog post
Related: I'm Done with Mullvad (65 points, 14 hours ago, 175 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975428
The CEO of Mullvad is the main financer of the Swedish Örebro party (118+695 points, last month, 3+1588 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48687508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48717469
Who is the most trusted VPN provider now?
Mullvad, IVPN and Proton VPN are all trusted so choosing depends on your priorities with the small differences between them.
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/vpn/
Obscura by definition is the same or better than Mullvad because of the multi-party relay. Similar with iCloud Private Relay but that's only for Safari which is inadequate.
Nym looks promising but mixnets haven't been tested as much as the Tor network.
Proton VPN had their own controversial episode earlier this summer:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48446899
I don't think what happened with Proton was controversial.
I don't see how that particular political expression is a risk to their VPN's stance. This is a lot of nothing; would have been better to ignore the screeching from Bluesky.
In fact I would argue that if he was cancelled like the mob wanted it would reflect badly on mullvad, If you cave to a bunch of Twitter warriors am I supposed to trust you from keeping my privacy when the government comes knocking?
For those unfamiliar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party
The party has been variously characterised as left-wing and right-wing, as well as populist, nationalist and conservative.
The message from the CEO about the donation: https://dberntsson.info/And for those who may not be old enough to remember the last time this happened in the techsphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...
"Large-scale remigration" is quite the euphemism for "violently remove people in the country from their homes and send them to God knows where."
It sounds like the usual far right bottom line dressed up with a bunch of “Free Pizza” promises to cover it with a veneer.
Personally I wish people like his had the balls to stop hiding behind that kind of thing, we all know what someone is about when “immigration is the main problem” in their viewpoint.
Own it. Or if it’s something to be ashamed of… accept the shame.
Failure to recognize immigration as a problem for a sizeable chunk of the population--rightly or wrongly--ensures that they will fall pray to demagogues and will never again trust those who repeatedly blew them off.
Progressives fuck this up continually across the policy spectrum, by having no answer other than "no you're wrong/immoral/stupid" to people who express concerns in categories that have strong orthodoxy requirements.
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.
Sorry, you speak about this as though you are an American (not sure if you are) but you can't hope to understand the realities of living in a country that just injected 1/10th of its population in a decade.
The demographic of the largest cities in Sweden has changed from 17% foreign born in 1986 to over 55% today- in a single generation. (Malmö, were I live as a migrant myself).
At the same time, the healthcare service is struggling, the police can't cope with the crime situation and there are gangs shooting people and grenades blowing up apartments everywhere.
AND: At the same time, the Geni coefficient remains remarkably low, and income inequality much lower than the US, so this "blame the rich" makes sense in the UK and US, but it's not the problem that Sweden has.
Sweden has mismanaged a lot of its public services (training, then underpaying doctors - leading to them going private, then there being a shortage of doctors which leads to the government paying huge contractor rates for those doctors - which is hugely expensive, so nurses try to avoid you seeing a doctor - which leads to less preventative healthcare, and more serious issues, which is more strain on the healthcare service).
It's not uniquely immigrants fault, they have a role to play in the welfare system and being hugely overrepresented in crime, but it's really not rich peoples fault.
Not in Sweden.
Note that while Sweden has a low income inequality, it has one of the worst wealth inequalities in the world.
Not really, this looks more like pre-1990s leftism that you see from people like Caesar Chavez. Broadly redistributive policies towards the working class and a strict curbing of immigration as a source of exploited labor underclass for corporations to fatten their margins. There's a reason Bernie called open borders a "Koch brothers proposal".
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.
You seem to have decided that people who are against immigration are stupid, racist, authoritarian, and evil: by all.means, that's an understandable bias, as the most noticeable part of most countries' populations who hold this view indeed appear to be what you think. However, it is still a bias, that leads to you engaging in the kind of self-righteous, irrational rage that might make you feel like you're standing up for the oppressed when you're actually not.
Most people seem to conflate immigrants with refugees, which is false (refugees are a small minority of all immigrants), to see immigrants as poor, hard-working people who just need one chance, which is also false (most immigrants are skilled workers, generally not the poor of their country, and most immigrants you see are probably family members of other skilled workers), and to view immigration as a leftist cause (again not true, immigration is something that's mostly lobbied for by corporate interests).
But many more people feel opposed to migration for entirely different reasons: personal hardships directly due to immigration (loss of job or house), political leanings (pro-working class can mean anti-immigration), social cohesion/sustainability/community considerations, etc.
Not empathising with those people and having a reductionist view of immigration, which often stems from simply being shielded from any negative effects of it, as most on this forum are, lets people take a position like yours, which further polarises society and plays into the cards of the powerful you seem to oppose.
We probably agree on almost every political view apart from this.
It must feel great to feel so vastly superior...
But everyone being crass and stupid was not even the question. The question was: how many more battles are going to be lost on that hill?
Only in Europe could a party with socialist-leaning values on every single issue except immigration be branded 'far right'. This is the case in every single European country for some reason.
Marine Le Pen's party in France leans socialist on econ but is painted as 'far right' for the same reason.
The Nazi's were full on socialists, I think it's more that the left-right spectrum is too binary to describe many parties political views.
Congrats on falling for hundred year old propaganda. Fascism loves dancing around in the flayed skin of the socialism it violently represses. Go look into what they did to trade unions if you think the Nazis were some Worker's Party.
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.
And the Democratic Peoples Republic Of Korea is super Democratic.
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
> We have nurtured a culture of radical tolerance.
Play radical games, win radical prizes. The last place I want my money going is towards radical authoritarianism, a cause that I thought Mullvad would thoroughly oppose.
> Self-censorship out of fear is an even bigger dampener than direct censorship.
Bullshit. Self-censorship is a self-preservation mechanism, a VPN doesn't change the consequences of saying illegal or offensive things. Direct censorship is an abuse of the monopoly on power, and much more inhumane than just feeling insecure about your edgy ideas being attached to your identity.
The "radical tolerance" thing is also a little ironic, since the biggest controversy with the party that the founder donated to is that the party isn't tolerant of people from different backgrounds or nationalities...
[insert Paradox of Tolerance quote here]
Tolerant is the wrong word to choose because tolerant doesn't mean "accepting" it means... to tolerate.
And the most extreme position they have stated is that "it doesn't matter if you're born here, if you commit crimes and don't respect the culture you should probably leave".
That is an extreme position, but it's not as black as people seem to paint it, which implies heavily that the party is just simply racist against non-swedes.
The actual racist party is the second most voted for party in Sweden, I think because of how intolerant the society has been about talking about the issues caused by migration. That is my own opinion though, as a migrant, living in the city with the most migrants in Sweden.
> 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"
Well, Sweden had to recently ban cousin marriage (it wasn't an issue before) but aside from that (which is a problem for the health service, but not for me personally), there are very differing perspectives towards homosexuality and Womens rights, and it is the second generation that feel most entitled to expressing their dissatisfaction at Swedens attitude towards those topics.
I might be a migrant myself, but I have strong feelings about this too.
Sure, one's origins should not lock one into a particular mindset.
There's a fair amount of "cultural" attitudes I'm not thrilled with: child genital mutilation, honor killings, child brides, hijabs, forced marriages, etc.
Tradition/culture gets treated as sacrosanct but all of it should be open to reconsideration as we ostensibly evolve as a civilization.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party#Immigration_...:
'In 2026 Örebro Party leader Markus Allard sparked controversy on several occasions. In a debate hosted by Studio3 with Liberal member of parliament Martin Melin, Allard asked: "why won't the Liberals push for deporting 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?" and in the same debate said that "Sweden belongs to the Swedes. We have to make sure that we take care of our own damn people and we must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense."
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."'
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.
Constitutions and laws are no protection for scapegoats once extremists gain power. Anyone who knows 20th century history knows where "we must deport these damn parasites" ends.
If they are called "social welfare-Somalis" (where do social welfare-Swedes get deported to?), if they are not included in "the Swedes" and "our own damn people", if "even if they are born in Sweden, [...] they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish", then integration is not what he wants.
Ok, but then you're saying Sweden is on the hook, in perpetuity, for an entire family tree of a stream of people that seems to never end unless racists take control of migration (which is what has happened now in Sweden).
Honestly, I really understand what you mean, but offering no solution and then talking down anyone who dares talk about it is exactly how extremists got support here in the first place.
If you're not living in sweden please keep in mind: this kind of demographic change is totally unprecedented in all of Europe and in all of history. In less than a 1/3rd of a generation, a decade, 10% of the population of a country was artificially added.
Such a thing has not happened historically unless a country was conquered. -- even then, it took 500 years for Skåne to be Swedish (in fact, many Swedes joke that they're still Danish). Just to say that a cultural shift of such magnitude is going to cause some tension no matter what, nobody has done it at this scale.
To then have those same people and their children, then, cause a disproportionate amount of violent and sexual crime while also being a disproportionate financial cost to the country: absolutely needs some kind of answer.
I'm not saying that Örebro Partiet or SD have that answer, but I sympathise with people who are tired of seeing this happening plainly with their own eyes, and being branded as racists, fascists or nationalists for clumsily trying to talk about it without the right verbiage because they've never had to exercise these kind of thoughts before.
The key observation missing from the conversation here is that you're being judged by Americans, where damn near everybody (save ~1% Native Americans) belongs to "an entire family tree" of immigrants. Race relations are one of those things that the US catches a lot of shit for because we've had to deal with it for the entirety of our nation's history, which lets us look at the attitudes alarmingly prevalent in Europe and go, "hey, that's like when my granddaddy was burning crosses in his neighbor's lawn. That's fucked up".
I think the other lesson we could draw from America is that we shouldn't let everyone in, they'll kill us, take our place and feel bad about it a few hundred years later... maybe.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
> We want to liken Mullvad to a force of nature. Or to cryptography. It just mechanically does its thing with no human arbiters.
I can't even find the right words to describe how wrong this sounds to me