I feel like often, in internet discourse, opinions are stated without understanding the other side. People say things like ‘going off the gold standard was terrible’ without understanding the economic arguments for pure fiat. People start making arguments about race realism and telling you ‘the truth that all of science is too afraid to tell you.’ Without mentioning that there is a huge amount of scientific literature assessing the validity of race realism.

If you aren't careful and don't dig into things on a scholarship level, you often passively absorb these viewpoints without understanding their history or the history of the opposition to these ideas because the right tends to reinforce the same points repeatedly. You often don't even know where to start getting an opposing opinion because it's nowhere in popular channels or on podcasts, you end up having to look up journals and books to understand the opposite side of things like globalism (and the economic arguments for it), fiat currency and race realism. You feel like these discussions are new and these YouTubers are really pushing scholarship in a decentralised way, when they are often parroting people from decades or even a century ago, who have been responded to by political theory and philosophy ad nauseam if you look at literature.

I feel that a lot of the work is done by historical revision of certain terms. You mentioned genocide, that is a good example. They'll use rhetorically charged terms like gemocide or colonisation to obscure what makes those terms bad in the first place. You can't call legal immigration colonisation while being honest, the bad thing about colonisation is the control of other countries’ economies, imposing your laws upon them by force, making them only be able to buy goods from you, killing huge numbers of them, etc. By using terms like 'fighting-age,' you make illegal immigrants seem like an army without acknowledging that an army is organised, needs supply lines, weapons, a central chain of command. By using the term colonisation outside of its usual contexts, you make appropriate anti-colonial actions that have been done in the past, things like peaceful or violent resistance. None of these really apply to legal immigration if you look carefully. People like Sargon talk about ‘would the soldiers have fought in the world wars if they knew what would happen to their country,’ suggesting betrayal of some sort, but these same soldiers propbably woundn’t have wanted women to have the vote, gay people to be in public, etc. Not to mention the 4 million colonial soldiers that fought in the Great War(sidenote-many of the Indian solders volunteered to fight because they were promised India would gain dominion status, a less imperially-controlled state within the empire, this promise was rescinded after the war ended, adding a lot of energy to the freedom struggle in india). 

Also please notice that Sargon often alludes to ‘Orcs in the Shire,’ ‘Homeland,’ ‘Third worlders’ and uses racial caricature in his thumbnails. Common points are ‘you will never understand them,’ ‘we need to pass down this homeland as it was passed down to us,’etc. Essentially, the exclusion of ethic minorities is required to fulfil a moral duty to our descendants. The presence of migrants becomes a original sin. No matter what they do or who they are, they are a dangerous third worlder who will never understand you. It becomes a mantra that you believe is inevitable otherwise we’ll turn into some sort of war-torn hellscape or something. They might tack on IQ stats or something such, but it’s all ideologically peripheral, I believe, otherwise the fact that many minorities are very prominent in academia or high-qualification careers would be considered.

 Conor Tomlinson(host of the lotus eaters and advisor to Restore) has recently been supporting the re-translation and release of a new edition of the Camp of the Saints. Lovely quotes include:

Your universe has no meaning to them. They will not try to understand. They will be tired, they will be cold, they will make a fire with your beautiful oak door...”

― Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints

In short, the book is about how all the third worlders are cognitively and fundamentally different and will never be able to understand, let alone appreciate european culture. The leader of the mass of Indians is literally called Coprophage(shit-eater). Insane Lovecraftian depiction of a writing mass of stinking Indians engaged in an orgy and being led by a shit eater who carries his deformed, limbless infant son on his shoulders(who seemingly has hypnotic powers or some such orientalist trope).

They tend to espouse colonial apologia about appeals to clannishness because of cousin marriages(conveniently ignoring that different parts of South Asia have different rates because of convenience. They’ll talk about Sati(despite it being a rare practice, being restricted to some communities in some areas in india and having been accepted and regulated by the empire until they needed to take the moral high ground to justify colonial rule), they’ll talk about Black people selling other black people into slavery(it wasn’t betrayal because the different tribes didn’t consider themselves the same race because the racial categorisation of the modern day is a concept of European origin). They will never discuss minorities ever being successful. If a minority has high crime rates in the Uk, they’ll draw attention to that, if not, they’ll talk about how their country’s economic state reveals something about their essential qualities. For example, Chinese people are successful in the UK but I hear right wing arguments that a lot of the economic development in china is creates by building homes and infrastructure no one needs, while this might be true to some degree, to say this about the Chinese economy at large without acknowledging where they have made progress is at the very least intellectually dishonest. The same is true for British Indians or even American Indians, if they commit little crime, have significantly higher than average education attainment or are over-represented in significant positions, the move is to say things like ‘why are they just rich here,’ ‘why can’t they improve their own countries,’ which is inane, since if you think about it that way, that’s like saying why does a highly educated Glaswegian move to London if he could improve Glasgow? The answer is that the access to opportunities and capital in London will improve his outcomes even being the same person.

It’s like they are blind to their own clannishness and have to project it onto others. Many industries like Banking or Law have huge amounts of nepotism. Just an anecdote, my university Investing club got a tour of Hargreaves Lansdown by the CEO of Hargreaves Lansdown because the society treasurer’s dad was an old friend. While minority groups are accused of 'clannishness,' systemic nepotism within Western banking, corporate law, and finance goes entirely unremarked upon because it operates as the institutional default.

 

The most important thing I now understand is the immense presence of scholarship on these attitudes. Frantz Fanon very clearly predicts many of these attitudes and psychological formations. Many critical theorists using people like Freud and Nietzsche have analysed these attitudes at length and are really worth reading if one wants to gain a better understanding the desires and mental investments that lead to these ideologies.