By God, is that how you read it? The comparison to animals, that he could not live with people of different ethnicity? And by "ethnicity", this literally means "non-white" people, as he, as a Danish person, wanted to move to London and complains that there are too many foreigners.
This is the AfD-level right-wing, not your casual conservative. Regardless, it's pretty expected that people would not want to support someone who writes this awful kind of similes.
> And by "ethnicity", this literally means "non-white" people
I read the links before I posted. I remember reading "non-Danes" and talking about Brits and non Brits. to me being a British person is about culture not skin color. If he is judging people by skin color then I'll disagree with him on that.
>He's comparing locals to sheep
Yes, you're right! Romani people to wolves. And locals as sheep. And we should put down the wolves.
>I read the links before I posted. One link specifically says "non-Danes" the other one is talking about Brits and non Brits.
Yes, you're right! Brits and non-brits. Let's scour:
>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.
There's a hint of what's going on here. Danish person wants to move to London. Gets to London. "gee, I could never migrate here, there are way too few native Brits". It's almost like he considers himself "a native Brit". Buddy just doesn't like colored people.
The comment I responded to had an issue with him comparing Roma people to animals. I just said he compared local people to animals too. Now if you move goalposts and say comparing to wolves is worse than comparing to sheep, we can argue about that but it's a different argument.
> Yes, you're right! Brits and non-brits
Exactly. But the comment I responded to claimed he hated people based on skin color. Brits can be black, you know? Some of my favorite brits are black or asian.
Other articles provided by a sibling comment show he believes people cannot integrate based on the country of their parents' origin, which is a wrong view in my opinion, but that quoted part you're replying about isn't about that.
2) He seems to be ok with some level of immigration: "Copenhagen, by comparison, was about eighty-five percent native Danes in 2000, and is still three-quarters today. Enough of a foreign presence to feel cosmopolitan, but still distinctly Danish in all of its ways. [...] So I get the frustration that many Brits have with the way mass immigration has changed the culture and makeup of not just London, but their whole country."
Nothing extreme about this. I have British friends of Indian descent who have expressed similar sentiments to me.
Do you boycott Japanese and Chinese companies as well? Because I guarantee their views on immigration are far more extreme. China, for all practical purposes, has essentially no immigration.
And finally, none of this has anything remotely to do with his operating system.
> The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
The incompatibility is a feature of the propaganda.
Even popular today in right winger rhetoric about globalism or the deep state. They're both controlling and running the world but are also completely incompetent and inept at stopping their "enemies" from gaining power.
I hear stuff about global corporations running the world from the left too by the way...