In other words, exactly what I pointed out: DHH is saying that London is not white enough for his tastes. Nonwhites with British citizenship, apparently, aren’t "real" Londoners or Brits.
White nationalists should own their scummy politics instead of pretending we’re all idiots.
What you're "pointing out" is your failure of understanding what words mean.
>DHH is saying that London is not white enough for his tastes.
DHH explicitly said "native Brits," not "White people." Russians may be "White," but are not "native Brits." London wouldn't feel like London if it was 60% Russian.
>Nonwhites with British citizenship, apparently, aren’t "real" Londoners or Brits.
They are by definition not "native Brits."
>White nationalists should own their scummy politics instead of pretending we’re all idiots.
Nothing he stated is White nationalist. There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native/indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners.
London is a melting pot and a global city. Always has been, always will be. The "natives" have no more of a right to it than British nationals with familial roots outside the UK. (Who, by the way, are not "immigrants" or "foreigners". Many are second or third generation Brits.) If the "natives" don't like it, they can self-deport to a more cloistered town. Good bye.
And this type of nativist is never, ever consistent. Ask them how they feel about, for example, Native Americans' claim to the US and they'll invariably say, "well, the colonials won, tough luck." Somehow, whites always come out on top. Funny how that works...
Anyway, since this is clearly not a case of white nationalism, feel free to drop the sockpuppet and own your words! But I don't think you're being honest. The subtext in DHH's post is blatantly, blaringly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension: https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
>London is a melting pot and a global city. Always has been, always will be.
Falsehoods and ahistorical delusions. You do you though, believe whatever BlueSky posts that preserve the narrative and signal virtue.
>The "natives" have no more of a right to it than British nationals with familial roots outside the UK. (Who, by the way, are not "immigrants" or "foreigners".
They are literally, by definition, "immigrants" and "foreigners." 40% of London is foreign born.
>And this type of nativist is never, ever consistent. Ask them how they feel about, for example, Native Americans' claim to the US and they'll invariably say, "well, the colonials won, tough luck." Somehow, whites always come out on top. Funny how that works...
And this type of anti-nativist is never, ever consistent. Ask them how they feel about, for example, Native Americans' claim to the US and they'll invariably say, "well, the colonials took what wasn't theirs!" Somehow, non-Whites always come out on top. Funny how that works...
>Anyway, since this is clearly not a case of white nationalism, feel free to drop the sockpuppet and own your words! But I don't think you're being honest. The subtext in DHH's post is blatantly, blaringly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension:
Anyway, since this is clearly a case of Anglophobia/White hatred, feel free to drop the sockpuppet and own your words! But I don't think you're being honest. The subtext in DHH's post is blatantly, blaringly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension: https://felipec.wordpress.com/2025/09/23/the-ruby-community-...
English people, which are White Brits, are the only Brits native to London. The English are the indigenous ethnic group to London.