Back in 2020 when we were still living in Essex, as a result of our having a contact in the London borough of Hackney campaigning against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), I took a keen interest in the protests against the implementation of the LTNs in that borough:
Does Martin Booth actually work for the council? The complete failure of our local press to hold those in power to account is shocking. They just act as their mouthpiece.
In a comment to the Nevermore thread on this issue, I cast this argument as jousting in a sandbox, but after actually reading the Stirrer hit piece, am moved to play too, if I may.
Some points:
--No argument with the main thesis, cooperation across identity lines is great for worthy causes!
--To cast the anti-immigration stance in the same light as the "divide and rule merchants" behind the BLM protests is a strawman argument. Those opposing excess immigration are doing so from the bottom up, in defense of their own ethnic integrity, not from the top down as an elite agenda. Rather the reverse, the globalist Replacement policy is the top-down, divine-and-rule strategy of the day.
--Your concept of "community" is akin to the newfangled 15-minute city, an abstract globalist unit that is set to replace the organic, more ethnic and less diverse communities of past tradition. Nicey nicey in leftist theory, but who living in local communities actually asked for it?
--Your beef with Henderson and Elmer seems to be the implication of a "strong and ruthless state" and nativist (you really mean nazi, right?) political party like MAGA or AfD. But while blaming them for looking for such a solution, you ignore what caused the problem of excess immigration in the first place: a strong and ruthless central government imposing its global vision from above, through policy, subsidy, and criminalization of dissent. All good for thee but not for them?
--Your logic about "sowing division," again, is backwards. It's not ordinary citizens upset about immigrants who are sowing division. They are simply reacting out of their own integrity against the division sown in their communities by immigration impacts. Check again the official policies of "the powers that be."
--Considering the above, your charge of "contrarianism and intellectual grandstanding" appear as crude projection. You really consider your "progresssive" ideas grassroots and not the British citizens advocating to protect their cultural identity from replacement with a globalist fantasy?
Stand together or fall by the wayside alone folks.
Does Martin Booth actually work for the council? The complete failure of our local press to hold those in power to account is shocking. They just act as their mouthpiece.
In a comment to the Nevermore thread on this issue, I cast this argument as jousting in a sandbox, but after actually reading the Stirrer hit piece, am moved to play too, if I may.
Some points:
--No argument with the main thesis, cooperation across identity lines is great for worthy causes!
--To cast the anti-immigration stance in the same light as the "divide and rule merchants" behind the BLM protests is a strawman argument. Those opposing excess immigration are doing so from the bottom up, in defense of their own ethnic integrity, not from the top down as an elite agenda. Rather the reverse, the globalist Replacement policy is the top-down, divine-and-rule strategy of the day.
--Your concept of "community" is akin to the newfangled 15-minute city, an abstract globalist unit that is set to replace the organic, more ethnic and less diverse communities of past tradition. Nicey nicey in leftist theory, but who living in local communities actually asked for it?
--Your beef with Henderson and Elmer seems to be the implication of a "strong and ruthless state" and nativist (you really mean nazi, right?) political party like MAGA or AfD. But while blaming them for looking for such a solution, you ignore what caused the problem of excess immigration in the first place: a strong and ruthless central government imposing its global vision from above, through policy, subsidy, and criminalization of dissent. All good for thee but not for them?
--Your logic about "sowing division," again, is backwards. It's not ordinary citizens upset about immigrants who are sowing division. They are simply reacting out of their own integrity against the division sown in their communities by immigration impacts. Check again the official policies of "the powers that be."
--Considering the above, your charge of "contrarianism and intellectual grandstanding" appear as crude projection. You really consider your "progresssive" ideas grassroots and not the British citizens advocating to protect their cultural identity from replacement with a globalist fantasy?
@NEVERMORE MEDIA @Jordan Henderson