reading a love letter to hitler. What? It doesn't say anything about the skin color?
> Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK's most prominent far-right activists with a history of criminal convictions. [0]
> That was then. Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
the "no longer full of native Brits" is a link to an article on the ethnic makeup of London. The cite only makes sense as support for his argument if he means white native Brits.
My goodness, people need to leave their ‘supremacist’ scarlet letters in their bags for when they’re actually earned. The Brits are just as much ‘native’ people to their lands as any aboriginal group. To want to keep their characteristic culture from being wiped out is no more supremacist than any other ethnic group doing the same.
He doesn't talk about culture though. He only talks about native. Like people coming from other countries can't drink tea or enjoy great British bakeoff or something. It's one of those "you know what I mean" posts with racist references.
They are very much earned, but don't take my word for it when DHH says it himself.
> In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
What does he mean here with that last sentence? Did he do a survey? Ask people where they were born or to self report their nationality? No. He walked through London, saw people who weren't white, and then went on his blog to complain about "non native Brits". He is explicitly talking about skin colour and implying that unless you are white you are not British. That definitionally racist.
To then go on, and praise Tommy Robinson, a far-right extremist who's spent the past decade stoking hate. The message of this article leaves no room for misunderstanding.
In DHH's own view if you are not a white "native" Brit then you should be removed. That is, by definition, a white supremacist.
He also links a Wikipedia article stating that more than 60 percent of Londoners were born in Britain to prove his point that only a third of Londoners are "native Brits". That doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
It's really telling you jumped right to "guilt". Nobody said the Brits had to feel guilty for their ancestors doing that. Just that they don't get to complain lol
The user you replied to said "collective guilt", which implies the former, and you seem to be confirming they were correct and that this side track about "feelings" is just you trying to diminish their point.
There's no need to lash out, you certainly won't gain anything by doing so.
I think that term gets tossed around too much flippantly - if you've ever ran into real white supremacists they are a magnitude more scary and dangerous than DHH's dopey opinion.
Racism isn't boogeymen in white robes hanging people.
It's kindly old ladies whose smile disappears the instant they lock onto a brown kid in the grocery store.
It's bosses who somehow find a good reason to not give a non-white person a pay raise or time off.
It's ordinary people who feel uncomfortable when they encounter people who look different and then they act different towards them.
The grand majority of racism is invisible. It's a constant pressure on people who do not perfectly fit into the culture that reminds them that if they do not meet the mark of what that group of people expect from them then the consequences will be extreme.
When you are not white and live in a town of generically racist white people, there are countless small things that happen that continuously remind you that your presence is under surveillance and that your permission to exist peacefully in "their" space is an act of grace that you must forever be grateful for.
This is something that can be explained to anyone ad nauseum, but until they experience it for themselves it sounds like bs. It's so easy to ignore that most people forget this as soon as their eyes are not looking at these words.
Race and culture are not the same thing and it’s a big pet peeve of mine that Americans always link the two.
A Slav that was born and grew up in China would be Caucasian but culturally Japanese.
Accusations of racism should stay limited to disparate treatment based on skin color or race exclusively and not extend into the cultural domain. Cultural preferences are not racist, full stop.
When I say culture, I mean the local culture, which is often defined by the demographics of the area.
I can see how that is confusing, but there is more than one interpretation of the word.
Also, wouldn't the Slav who grew up in China be culturally Chinese?
They would probably also experience racism as defined by being treated differently because of their race. Their experience of what would most likely be a small pocket of people who have integrated them surrounded by a larger pocket that would automatically treat them as a westerner would mean that their cultural experience would be inversely analogous to a Chinese person who grew up in Poland.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. Just that calling DHH a white supremacist is an exaggeration. It waters down the meaning, and not sure what's left to describe violent street thugs in discourse, I guess "LiTerAL nAZis"?
I mean, his words are the words of a white supremacist. His ideals are the ideals of a white supremacist.
Just because he isn't calling for war, murder, famine, pestilence, plague, death, and the fourth Reich all to fall on people of other colors does not mean that he isn't a white supremacist.
Like I said. It's easy to overlook. No one should long for a "pure" society.
There are no pure humans on this planet outside of a select group of african people who never interbred with neanderthal or denisovians, and as the last bastion of "pure" humans they seem fairly well content to not enforce their superiority on other people.
I just think these word shifts are silly. Yeah times change but using the most extreme terms waters them down, and personally think it makes society numb to them, like crying wolf too many times.
What are the chances that successful white supremacists have learned how to espouse their ideals while avoiding triggering language that could affect their income or popularity?
There are many people who won't get it unless it is explicit, and this has been an understood issue for a long time.
Look at these lyrics:
"He's the one who likes all our pretty songs, and he
Likes to sing along and he likes to shoot his gun, but he
Knows not what it means" -Nirvana "In Bloom"
People who follow right wing white supremacist influencers and fail to understand that they are being influenced to support right wing white supremacist causes are the people Kurt Cobain was singing about.
They think they are just there for fun, to own the libs, to protect their future or their country or occasionally to protect the "purity of their bloodlines", whatever catch phrase is going around, and then the people they support do bad things their supporters say, "It's not my fault X did Y" but keep supporting the general causes and content of those influencers.
Sure, maybe they drop Andrew Tate for being a rapist, but then they just find someone else to take his place.
Regardless of whether or not that's the correct term for DHH....
real white supremacists they are a magnitude more
scary and dangerous than DHH's dopey opinion
I would like to caution you against the use of the term "real" white supremacists.
Are you imagining a "real" white supremacist as guy who burns crosses, is covered with racist tattoos, and openly spouts slurs? Because the effective and dangerous ones are a hell of a lot more stealthy than that.
Racism in general, including white supremacy, is more accurately viewed as a spectrum and not a binary racist/non-racist divide.
> viewed as a spectrum and not a binary racist/non-racist divide
That's exactly my point why I suggest not watering down the term white supremacy with "I hate this annoying opinion when I interpret it maximally". Calling DHH a white supremacist is silly.
No, the dopey ones are just as bad. They legitimize having bigoted opinions, and having bigoted opinions towards immigrants in an industry founded on immigrants is both short-sighted and not something anyone should support.
Nobody ever gets cancelled for actual conservative values like lower taxes and limited government. They get kicked out for being hateful.
