"Right wing" is not defined by popularity but by the nature of the arguments being put forth. A central argument in the piece is that London was better in the past. The suggestion that things were better in the past, and we should return to that time, is core to a certain kind of conservative thought. Conservative, by definition, means opposing change. Therefore this is a right-wing argument, whether it is popular or not.
The comment you originally replied to said it's not a radical right wing opinion. So my comment is reiterating that; it's not radical. Being slightly right of centre in the sense of wanting to preserve your culture is a mainstream opinion.
Radical can be defined as a sharp departure from the status quo (DHH is merely suggesting a turn back to the status quo of immigration policy from maybe a couple decades ago) or as something more extreme than the mainstream view. If something is so popular it's the majority opinion, it's not radical by most definitions.
He actually pretty explicitly pines for the condition of the past, where London was full of "native Brits," and makes no mention of immigration policy. Then he links to statistics showing that 60% of Londoners are native born British citizens.
So in his mind, you can be a British citizen born in Britain but not a "native Brit." I don't see how one can reach this conclusion unless you believe non-white people to be incapable of being "native Brits" despite being born and raised in Britain.
Again, would love to see where he advocates for any particular immigration policy. The post pretty explicitly admits to just preferring when London was more white (as evidenced by linking to stats showing London is not less British, simply less white)
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but that bit about "native Brits" and then linking to how London has fewer white people than ever before doesn't get your senses tingling? Saying Tommy Robinson's just some jolly ole bloke gone for a walk doesn't give you a whiff of something being off?
Everyone is invited to click on the link upthread and form their own opinion!
The entire post is an anti-immigration screed. How is it not xenophobic?
It's also littered with references to other far-right positions, like defending someone who was tweeting out incitements to violence against trans people - "If a trans-woman is in a female-only space, punch them in the balls"
I agree that his position is right wing, but is it far right? Most nations explicitly exist for the people native to the place. Very few nations allow foreign immigration on the scale that the US, UK, Canada, do. And European countries make it pretty difficult to migrate normally- unless you’re a Muslim “refugee”. Being anti-immigrant is a default position in the world.
I think the average person on the left likes to believe they have the position that “all immigration is good”. In reality, they mean all migration by nonwhite people is good (see how they talk about white or near-white people in the US, Canada, Israel). It’s this hypocrisy and obviously racist stance that bugs me.
What makes Muslim migration to Europe “good” but Jewish migration to the stateless land of Israel from 1890-1948 bad? What makes Muslims moving to the US “good” but makes all white people in the US colonizers? Either everybody gets the colonizer notation (foolish imo) or migration is a human right (like it was for the million years before the modern nation-state) and everybody needs to fucking deal with it, stop killing each other and stop condemning people for moving or for the past crimes of people who may be barely related. And if you’re going to migrate: don’t be an asshole to the people there first.
