“They obviously aren’t; but you could be forgiven for thinking each extremist faction doesn’t really mind so much to risk reinforcing their enemies; as long as they themselves get correspondingly stronger against the overwhelming majority of peaceful, morally reasonable people.”
It is a comment worthy of a Guardian columnist I am afraid to say, because it assumes that anyone who doesn’t share your point of view is an extremist and those who do are morally reasonable people.
First of all, sorry for not getting back to you earlier, Lana.
The most concise thing I can say is that I have skimmed over a lot of complex topics here: like immigration and asylum, for example. By using the term ‘extremist faction,’ I think I have left some hostages to fortune, by not clarifying what I meant by this.
To avoid an excessively long-winded explanation, I will say that I stand by my view in a recent blog article on Sputnik, that the white nationalist and Islamist far rights are two of the factions to blame for recent terrorism in the UK; among others, such as the warmongering ‘far center’ political establishment.
I’m afraid the term ‘white nationalist’ probably still sounds a little vague, and it’s probably worth a whole essay (at least) to clarify what that means.
I will say that I do believe a conversation on immigration has to be had. There has to be a pragmatic middle ground between the far right on the one hand, and the far center on the other. I think those I call ‘the Party of Inclusion’ and ‘the Party of Exclusion’ are both driven by a dogmatic and sentimental attitude; they mirror each other, rather than seriously opposing each other. One is the opposite of the other.
I did discuss that a little as well, in a second (earlier) article on mine on the Sputnik blog (although I’ve just had a couple of other essays come out on Sputnik today as well).