Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
I'm nor prejudicially opposed to immigration control or to asking for standards for integration. I think that the devil is in the details, but certainly there are ways to write restrictive requirements in a non-racist way.
Switzerland, for example, has some pretty strict immigration laws, and doesn't automatically grant citizenship without the approval of a local council.
However putting race/ethnicity EXPLICITLY as the foundation of a narrative for specific policies is always pretty unsavory.
Moreover Pettibone, Southern, Sellner ARE advocating for explictly ethnic based nationalism. Pettibone is also involved with conspiracy theory circles (she's one of the biggest promoters of the PizzaGate BS) while Sellner is assiciated to several far-right organizations in Austria and Germany. Southern is also in close contact with Generation Identitaire, which is a group with shady, vague goals, and whose members have often spoken in terms of Steersman-esque "population transfers" and deprivation of rights.
In other words: it's one thing to ask all children to take part in swim lessons or shake their female teachers' hands regardless of their religious beliefs, or to limit immigration to those who already have jobs, or to expel criminal foreigners, or to stop funding to religious/political associations from foreign powers who promote messges hostile to the laws and principles of your country or to have a high bar for citizenship.
It's another thing to promote an apocalyptic narrative based on ethnicity/race, with conspiracies about secretive powers planning ethnic displacement, and to encourage judging people according to their ethnicity, while considering them collectively responsible for the demise of a country.
I am in agreement that this stuff is an issue.
Yesterday I watched Stefan Molyneux interview Tommy Robinson. It should be fairly obvious that I find both of these people questionable for various reasons, however I do find it interesting to hear what they are thinking. For the most part Robinson stayed on-point, he's very well informed about immigration facts and figures, and that shows as his approach has generally improved from ranting to showing concern. It's still very much based in emotional manipulation but credit where it's due, it's tempered with a lot more reason and fact now.
Where I think he's still on dodgy ground is towards the end of the interview, where Robinson makes the claim "we are being replaced". I think this fallacious, as it contains the unstated major premise that there are particular powers with a deliberate plan to "replace" white people.
Now I do not dispute the facts on the ground - migrations figures are what they are - but I do take issue with the kind of logic that foments conspiracy thinking like this. Combine that with repeated bashing of "the left" despite the fact that we haven't had a "left" government here in quite some time - unless Robinson considers the Tories to be a leftist party - and what you end up with is a victimhood narrative with scant factual basis.
I wish he would simply make the case that the general trends have led to a bad outcome, and suggest a methodology to deal with it. But instead what you get is anger and innuendo, which I think is counter-productive at best.
He is constantly framing the debate in collective terms - the 'natives', the 'muslims', the 'sikhs' etc and attributing behavioral characteristics to these groups instead of focusing on the specific actions which are bad or how to deal with any of it.
I do think people need to hear what he is saying, and maybe the form it takes will shock some people into realisation about islam. But it's full of identity politics and collective blame thinking, which is what caused this in the place.
