https://www.yahoo.com/news/immigration-crime-propel-europes-move-to-right-analysts-say-202748280.htmlAt a glance, the two countries share relatively few commonalities. Sweden is a wealthy, cohesive welfare state, which over the past 90 years has typically been led by leftist coalition governments. By comparison, Italy’s economy, which is burdened by massive debt, is reeling. Costs of living are soaring, and over the past decade, its government has changed nearly every 18 months. But in both places, rising crime and misgivings about immigrants are prompting a political realignment.
In other words, it's not economics behind rightist popularity, and hence rightism will not be defeated by False Leftist platforms offering economic improvement. Leftist politicians need to stop trying to distract people with economics ASAP and argue directly against rightist talking points on ethical grounds. For example, we are pro-immigration not because immigration is economically beneficial (even though it may be), but because it is the only ethical position:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/debunking-rightist-anti-immigration-arguments/ (see excerpts below)
Continuing:
Jimmie Akesson, the new leader of the Sweden Democrats, insists his party has shed its fascist leanings, though the party remains staunchly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim and keeps pounding home its messaging linking foreign-born Swedes and crime.
We already have this covered!
Another similarly common rightist argument that "migration by criminals will increase crime" is similarly faulty. Again, every immigrant is also an emigrant. The total number of criminals is unchanged. Only the location of crimes are changed.
(And again, what rightists really mean, of course, is that they prefer others whom they do not care about to be the victims of crime. This is tribalism.)
Continuing:
The bigger issue for Meloni, however, may be the changing face and complexion of Italian citizens. The woman who promotes “God, homeland and family” frequently laments Italy’s low birth rate and fears the extinction of Italians and their replacement by immigrants from Africa, a conspiracy she has accused the government of the European Union of orchestrating. “The EU is complicit in uncontrolled immigration, the invasion of Europe and the project of ethnic replacement of European citizens,” she wrote on her website in February.
We have this covered too! Firstly, it is not "invasion":
If State A invades State B, former taxpayers to State B will now be paying taxes to State A instead (ie. State B loses taxpayers; State A gains taxpayers). In contrast, if inhabitants of State A migrate to State B, these former taxpayers to State A who have migrated will now be paying taxes to State B instead (ie. State B gains taxpayers; State A loses taxpayers). Thus in fact immigration is the opposite of invasion.
Secondly:
if it's OK for "whites" to live outside of Europe (as hundreds of millions currently do), it's OK for at least the same number of "non-whites" to live in Europe.
The only way for the left to win is to take the moral high ground on the issue:
This pretty much highlights how it is flat-out logically impossible for WNs to win the ethical debate. If they go with the position that migration is wrong (which they need for criticizing migration by "non-whites"), then they cannot avoid the conclusion that "whites" wronged "non-whites" first, and hence have no authority to complain. The only logical way to avoid incriminating themselves is to go with the position that migration is not wrong, in which case they have no reason to complain. Either way they are screwed.
Their only recourse is to declare that it is OK when "whites" do it but not OK when "non-whites" do it ie. ingroup/outgroup double-standards a.k.a. "It's OK to be white!" In other words, to declare that they do not care about ethics.
not to attempt to distract attention from the issue (which has failed already).