For what it's worth, this lasted longer tha Weimar. So we did get better and all it took was losing everything and decades of occupation and a huge Cold War where both sides kinda needed us as the battlefield.
those can be removed easily once in power and the “conservatives” have blocked probes into police violence and systemic racism as well as fascist terrorist groups inside the police for decades. So if the constitutional court rules against such a government it is very well possible that they just get ignored or worse attacked by the government.
Democracy doesnt survive through laws and institutions. It survives through the people involved in the political and governmental processes to uphold. And the German “conservative” parties are happy to hurt democracy if it gets them back into power and to do the equivalent of “owning the libs”. They have considerably radicalized and are trying to do things like Trump did.
Sweden currently has a right-wing government supported by the Nazis (the SD party, who have roots in Sweden’s WW2-era NSDAP affiliates, though vigorously deny being Nazis), who are still considered too much of a hot potato to let into the government proper, so they have to have their offices outside the government building of the parliament and launder their policy ideas through the mainstream right-wing parties. Most of the policies thus laundered can be summed up as “make Greta Thunberg cry”: cutting diesel taxes, scrapping high-speed rail plans, and just now scrapping the plastic-bag surcharge, a move that has no purpose other than to be culture-war red meat. (Make Greta Cry are the only culture-war issues they can agree on; beyond that, they’re coming to blows on things like Pride flags/LGBT rights and such.) Other than that, they’ve bringing in tougher requirements for Swedish citizenship, but not much more than that.
Theoretically, if the right gets re-elected in 2026, it’s possible that the Nazis (the largest party among them) will be in government proper, or even that their Reichsführer Jimmie Åkesson (a mediagenic stuffed shirt good at making a motley crew of thugs and bigots look like “citizens with legitimate concerns”) would be prime minister. In practice, the right are tanking in polling, and it’s not getting any better for them, and a Socialdemokraterna-led centre-left coalition is likely to be the next government. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then, but short of a Riksdag fire or 9/11-style spectacle, I can’t see them turning this around easily, as it has become painfully apparent that a significant proportion of the coalition are cretins.
For those who aren’t familiar with Swedish domestic politics: this is a good example of why you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet. The parent comment appears to be written in bad faith and borders disinformation.
The Sweden Democrats/Sverigedemokraterna, which the poster is referring to as nazis, have always been advocaters for a more strict migration policy. Apart from that they are pretty much aligned in the middle.
The actual nazi party (Nordiska Motståndsrörelsen) got 847 votes (0,01%) in the 2022 riksdag election and the poster knows this. Alternativ För Sverige/AfS, the closet nazis and where most people draw the actual line for the extreme right, got 16 646 votes (0,26%). Data from The Swedish Election Authority
Finland at the final step. One of current ruling parties is a populist conservative one with openly racist views. And our right wing parties are sucking their dicks cause together they can bash some unions. A fucking disgrace.
From my perspective the center became extreme right this year… It’s actually the extreme right that choose to vote their laws because they are exactly what they like.
Yup. And the CDU recently brought forward a draft proposal (?) for a tax cut that they knew would only get passed if the Nazis also voted in favor of it. And of course they did.
Well, the United States is turning to fascism itself, with MAGA, Trump and De Santis’ ideas having become mainstream. And both politicians are seriously being considered to be presidential candidates in the next election!
Trump convinced thousands to attack a government building for supposed fraudulent election results. He is as much of a politician as Hitler, Mussolini and other autocrats.
Awesome. There won’t be a European war against fascism this time because France, Germany, Italy, the UK and Poland will be on the same side this time. Good to hear that the Dutch will be as well.
I’d like to add that both sides of the political spectrum caused their extreme growth. There was a huge storm of dissatisfaction regarding the immigration politics and at one point I recall our government sponsored news channel showing statistics of about 70% of Swedens citizens were asking for reducing it as it was unsustainable. During this time the centrist right leader held a speech about how “this current situation will cost us a LOT of money, but we need to open our hearts” while the left flat out ignored the problems and said we were a “Humanitarian great power” and stated we were getting highly educated doctors and professors.
The only party that spoke against it was the extreme right, and any mention of anti-immgration caused a massive shitstorm by any other political party that refused to touch the subject. Quite obviously when you polarize the country and refuse to listen to your voters, they’ll go to the party that DO.
I’m not defending or showing support for them, I’m just explaining how they’re this big because of the arrogance and ignorance of the other parties. THEY made them big and now they have to work with them.
During this time the centrist right leader held a speech about how “this current situation will cost us a LOT of money, but we need to open our hearts” while the left flat out ignored the problems and said we were a “Humanitarian great power” and stated we were getting highly educated doctors and professors.
Pretty much exactly what happened in Germany. But because of German history there was not even an honest debate about cost and instead a lot mental gymnastics of how it could benefit the country.
The only party that spoke against it was the extreme right, and any mention of anti-immgration caused a massive shitstorm by any other political party that refused to touch the subject.
Yeah, this is the problem right here. If none of the mainstream political parties are representing a particular opinion, large swathes of voters will go to the fringe parties that do represent how they feel. And this is how fringe far-right parties become the new mainstream.
It sucks to admit it, because on humanitarian grounds, I’m pretty in favour of accepting migrants, refugees, etc. But if such a large fraction of the population is against it, it simply can’t happen, and compromises have to be made.
That’s why I don’t get how every single center-right party is going this way.
They hope to get votes back from radicalized people but in the end they make more people radical and then they vote for the “original” or “against the establishment”
Giving Nazis an inch just makes them take the next one, too until there’s nothing left
Idk but probably the same as anywhere else. Racism, misogyny and a good portion of fear and hate for people that stick out in any way. Populism, simple thruths and wishing things were like at least a few decades ago.
Topics that work every time are crime and immigration. And on top of those evergreens they also need about 1 current topic. For example hating on trans-people. (But I don’t know if it’s that in sweden.)
A person should really be out of his mind to think that party names all around the world would follow the same “logic” as in their own country, specially with so generic names such as democrats and republicans
Even in the US the republicans used to be the more left party until the early 20th century. Id say the US terms are the least consistent with the rest of the world.
In most European countries you’ll find the following parties with similiar names: Conservatives, Social Democrats, Greens, Liberals (usually just economics) Left/Socialists, Nationalists
Thanks for the recommendation, will watch. Judging by the first minutes before and after the trailer, it’s about gang crime and a ‘less than optimal’ integration effort into normal society? And she is going to bridge the gap in some (positive or presumably negative) way?
I actually lived in those neighborhoods. Unlike 99% of the keyboard warriors here. Incompatible values. When you see a 3 yo girl wearing a hijab on a bus in sweden, it breaks my heart. Especially given the history behind the creating of the hijab rules. Most of you are ignorant and operate based on US politics in mind here, with absolute disregard of the situation in the EU. And btw, I am a EU migrant myself.
Agree. I think we shouldn’t engage with people with that kind of vocabulary on the internet. I’ve tried and it’s always wasted. And they felt the need to reply and in a few sentences inadvertently confirm every stereotype I listed… Okay, to be fair, misogyny is still missing.
Also, interestingly, the Swedish far-right party actually ranges from right to centre-left in the traditional sense of right/left wing politics. It’s just that far right has become synonymous with nationalist/populist.
Ah wow, when did this occur? It seem implausible that a nation would refuse to treat a patient unless hospitals were at some sort of max capacity, how many people died in this manner? What is the inflection age where the death trend for that age group spikes? I would expect it to be visible and measurable. Did any other countries practice such a program?
Also you said it was an official declaration, what date did this announcement occur? It might help to reduce the questions I ask if I can look it up and link it.
The country’s treatment of the elderly and patients with comorbidities such as obesity was especially appalling.
“Many elderly people were administered morphine instead of oxygen despite available supplies, effectively ending their lives,” the researchers wrote. “Potentially life-saving treatment was withheld without medical examination, and without informing the patient or his/her family or asking permission.”
That is really incredible. This quote stood out to me, as it seems to be the root cause of many pandemic woes, "We argue that that scientific methodology was not followed by the major figures in the acting authorities—or the responsible politicians—with alternative narratives being considered as valid, resulting in arbitrary policy decisions. In 2014, the Public Health Agency, after 5 years of rearrangement, merged with the Institute for Infectious Disease Control, with six professors leaving between 2010 and 2012 going to the Karolinska Institute. With this setup, the authority lost scientific expertise. The Swedish pandemic strategy seemed targeted towards “natural” herd-immunity and avoiding a societal shutdown. The Public Health Agency labelled advice from national scientists and international authorities as extreme positions, resulting in media and political bodies to accept their own policy instead."
Killing off people elderly people could potentially lead to eugenic effects downstream. Not everything is simple and easy to understand as you want it to be.
Funny comment for somebody with the nick ‘KillAllPoorPeople’, but wrong in my eyes, nonetheless. Eugenic is preselection of who gets born by either prenatal measurements or hindering those who are able to reproduce. Killing off people who will have no chance to reproduce anyways is from an eugenic point of view insignificant. There is no longterm downstream effect, only the possibility of some moral change.
“I cannot personally think of a scenario where something is true, therefore, it can not and can never be true.” - every great philosopher and scientist
‘I have an opinion and make either the evidence, my perception of it or the terms we are discussing fitting it’
every troll always
There is no way to see senicide as a eugenic strategy without changing what eugenic means. But, as you point out, I might be wrong. So feel free to score your goal without moving the post.
That is not eugenics, because the people are not removed from the genepool as a result of eugenic thought, but by people with non-eugenic intentions under the influence of a specific policy that is not inherently eugenic. I see that as a circular argument. They can chose to reproduce. Also note, that this policy would not improve the genepool, but dramatically weaken it, as it would lead to - if somehow a significant amount of people would share your non-sequitur train of thought - only those reproducing who can be sure that their offspring dies early, e.g. families who have certainty that there offspring dies at 50 of cancer. Prenatal diagnostics would turned into the opposite it is used for, where only defective children would be born. You make a case for the opposite of eugenics.
“eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans.” www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics
Your personal idea of “improving” and “weakening” isn’t how the definition of the word is defined (they don’t list your name to give the approval). Eugenics, in practice, never applied to people with wealth and power. Other people not being allowed to grow old and “leech” off society (i.e. not give their capital and labor to the ruling class) is an idea in a lot of mainstream conservative circles today. To think a policy of killing off the elderly when they “run out” of societal value during a global pandemic isn’t running up to the line of eugenics is, frankly, kind of absurd. Policies can be much more subtle and not trigger people to think it’s eugenics (e.g. “color blind” policies that purposely target racial minorities) and usually fight against the idea they’re eugenics (e.g. or racist). You’re being too gatekeepy and not accepting that eugenics doesn’t need to come in the form of the utmost obvious like rounding up every distinct minority and killing them off so they can’t repopulate with their kind.
To think a policy of killing off the elderly when they “run out” of societal value during a global pandemic isn’t running up to the line of eugenics is, frankly, kind of absurd.
This is the key point and you are simply wrong, as you confuse eugenics and utilitarism. It is not absurd to think of the covid example as eugenic, but it does not withstand a closer look, because, as you point out yourself, it’s about the economic value, not the genetic value.
but it does not withstand a closer look, because, as you point out yourself, it’s about the economic value, not the genetic value.
The reason people are eugenicists is because of some other thing. The “genetic value” doesn’t exist on its own. It exists part of society. Race eugenicists, for example, think their race is superior to others because of x, y, and z (one of the reasons is almost always about “economic value” too).
Race eugenicists , for example, think their race is superior to others because of x, y, and z (one of the reasons is almost always about “economic value” too).
Exactly. The intention of eugenics is about the genetic value. If improving economic situation of the majority is the reason for a policy, its utilitarian. A eugenetic policy is always utilitarian under the assumptions of the specific eugenists implementing it. But by overwhelming far majority is not every utilitarian policy a eugenic one. You so far, only prestend utilitarian ideas and not a single instance, where improving the genetic value is the actual intention. A utilitarian policy aiming at economic value and by accident also somehow influencing reproduction behaviour is not eugenic.
But is it how you’d start a “eugenics program”? I’m also not sure quite what you mean. Lead to it politically, or through some social knock on effect or?
Add comment