Here’s a common scenario I’ve seen many times: someone says, “I want to live in a country with my own people,” and an interlocutor treats the expression as if a demand for violence has been made—becomes quite angry, in fact. It happens because the progressive person in the discussion, the person inculcated with a superficial progressive view, runs the following logic in a few seconds flat, “This society is now multi-racial, even if you asked for voluntary repatriation that wouldn’t work for everyone since millions would want to stay, if people will not leave voluntarily they’ll have to be coerced, if they have to be coerced that means violence, which means this, which means that, which means Auschwitz.” Therefore, explode as if the other person just called for violence.
It’s why the left often perceives what the right considers to be non-inflammatory speech as a “call for violence”—a situation partly aided by leftist neurosis. I can’t disagree with the logic as such, since it seems self-evident to me that even if you turned off the welfare state completely (an action that would cause vast reverse migration) and also offered inducements to leave, a substantial residue would remain and to remove them would require coercion. However, this is all very speculative and reality doesn’t work in neat logical chains like that—so the quick chain-logic that the progressive performs, so leading to hysteria, doesn’t follow; and it doesn’t warrant the hysterical response to the statement, the statement being treated as if you said, “The only answer is Auschwitz.”
You didn’t—or most people didn’t, and perhaps that statement is so extreme that the reaction would be laughter, not hysteria (not sure tho). Anyway, the point stands that just to say, “I want to live in a country with my own people,” does not warrant a response akin to that being a call to violence because in itself it isn’t—and reality is not so neatly logical, although, contra rightist lore, leftists are.