upvote
I don't think it's fair to say that being anti large scale immigration is racist.
reply
It's the framing. Wolves, sheep, and gypsies. "Standing idly by while your livestock is devoured by predators or your neighborhood is taken over by migrants"; migrants are not inherently predators at all. North America is built by them. DHH implies anyone from outside is only arriving to violate and destroy what existed before them. This is not at all how it works.

Alongside this framing is seemingly no admission or acknowledgement that crimes have been and still are perpetrated by "normal Brits" as well; the focus is entirely on the barbarians coming from outside to maraud. It's as though he attaches criminality to foreignness.

He also steps all over the line of what a "native" Brit is. Seemingly not someone born there, but, according to statistics he is certainly referring to white Brits.

The list goes on. The man is racist. I don't think being anti-large scale immigration is inherently racist at all. As a Canadian I have substantial concerns about how immigration is conducted, and I don't consider that racist. But very, very little of what DHH thinks, or how he frames his ideas, ever crosses my mind. I don't think about preserving 'real' or 'normal' Canadians. I think a lot about how immigrants have made my country better. I don't internally or explicitly associate crime with immigration. It's much different.

reply
You can always go live in Africa/the Middle East if you want to live there. We don't so will not be permitting people from those areas to take over our countries, thanks.
reply
Right he juxtaposes wolves:shoot::gypsies:deport — using a literal extermination campaign as a metaphor has been incredibly problematic throughout history.

Also generally in Denmark gypsy is a pejorative (sigøjner). One could go on and on, there's no overreach to the racist claim by any means.

He's not bumbling into these situations, he knows very well what he's doing.

reply