No one is free until everyone is free. Daniel Berntsson is acting against freedom, he has chosen to vote for and support a party that protects only the /freedom/ of a small part of the world and seeks to “defend” it at any cost—through racism, stereotyping, and the criminalization of people fleeing exploitation and war. Europe is rich only because every corner of the world is exploited by Europe and the US. Now the tables have turned, and they want to protect what they have stolen.
The same applies to people who say they support freedom but are then opposed to immigration because their concept of freedom is tied to wealth, privileges, and the preservation of those things. But that has little to do with freedom. We are only free when everyone is free.
The primary financier of a political party that calls immigrants "parasites" does not support open borders.
Claming otherwise is at a minimum disengious, but with absolutly no clarification from Daniel directly, it just reads like you are lying about his stances for PR.
I can't find the link youre referring to in the vague chaos of this thread, but based on his current donations to a virulently anti immigrant party, it sure seems like your partners feelings have changed about open boarders since it was written. Why is he unable to speak for himself on this matter?
If open boarders are only acceptable when you can refuse immigration based on ethnicity, then no, you do not support open borders. When you work to forcably eject not only first but second generation immigrants, people born in Sweden, based on their ethnicity, you do not support open borders.
The above looks to be a core tenat of Daniel's prefered political party based on their own statements, so its extremely disengious to discuss some old article about supporting free movement while he's actively donating to people who want to brutalize hundred of thousands of Swedish residents because they are the "wrong type" of people.
It is interesting how the article frames "opposition to immigration" as a threat for the state or reason to prosecution. Therefore, the state would prefer it if everyone opposed it, especially in a fascist state.
What is illegal immigration?
I think it's funny that most people who scream about freedom only mean their own freedom. "Age verification" is nothing more as a new law, from a state. You all so naive that the state would stop by their "own" citizens, because... because why?
The state does not make a difference. It is an illusion that the "own" citizens are worth anything to the state. You are workers, aka capital, nothing more.
The truth is that 'foreigner' is a term invented by states to create a distinction where there is mostly no difference. I have more in common with a normal citizen from elsewhere than I do with Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos.
Wallace finds something more than just a design problem. Explaining how people think. We don't think in isolation. We think through mimesis (also known as copying).
When a child is learning language, they're not making up new sounds. They're just copying. When a musician learns jazz, they first write down the solos exactly as they are played, before improvising. When a scientist understands a proof, they work through it step-by-step, following the same steps as the person who first thought of it. Copying something isn't the same as thinking. It is thinking.
The people who move fastest aren't the ones who are trying to be the most original. They're the ones who've studied the old masters so well that their new ideas seem natural, not forced. They have copied so much that they can finally trust their instincts to break the pattern.
In this sense, stealing is the mental work of becoming, not just copying, but creating.
Any man with that kind of power (would) do the same. Not just the police.
The problem with patriarchy is that no one even considers the possibility that women and children might be harassed through technology. Because that perspective is missing.
Google or Apple lenses, AI (Grok in particular), satellites, etc., etc., there’s no oversight or verification to ensure that this technology isn’t also being abused by men for personal desires, revenge, or whatever else.
Maybe because it’s desired that there be no oversight.
It depends.
In their original political and philosophical roots, socialists pursued the same goals as anarchists: a political order without top-down hierarchical structures, but one that is self-managed from within. Workers for workers. No hierarchies constructed by things like patriarchy or capitalism.
Communism, which is supposed to lead to socialism (?), can be diametrically opposed to anarchism, as it incorporates the idea of imperialism, a doctrine of order and authoritarianism.
People who are called socialists today, such as Bernie Sanders, are not socialists in that sense, but rather liberals in the guise of socialism who subordinate themselves to the order of capitalism and thus have very, very little to do with anarchism.
But also little to do with socialism. For reformist approaches pursue the treatment of symptoms rather than systemic changes that tackle the actual problems at their root. Anarchist structures, on the other hand, are also called “root movements,” as they aim to address fundamental changes—even if only on a small scale—at their very roots.
