oh, ok. if you look at the question WHY are they here, any rational person would object.
afa do i want to share a society with them? no. i do not want to share a society with any group who votes against the interest of the founder's posterity. looking at voting patterns, the only group in america who desires small govt are white people. https://ibb.co/KW75JJq
case in point. if you want small govt, you need people that look similar to the nation's founders.

i want to here your position first.

My take is you are an enemy to freedom and justice for all. You are down right unAmerican.

not an argument

It was kind of an argument but more of a statement.

i'm sorry that my right to self determination offends you.

Yeah...

You don't have a right to self-determination. And the US Constitution doesn't give any special rights to the descendents of original Americans to decide who is allowed to come to the US. You're just making that up.

yup. misspoke. i don't know where i implied anything you're arguing in the second sentence. i'm speaking from a place of opinion, since that is what people are asking of me.

i would say, everybody is justified in self determination tho. would you disagree?

Yes. Insofar as it is a right (and I don't think it generally is one) self-determination is a collective, not individual right. For instance, arguably Catalans as a group have a right of self-determination through the EU, but individual Catalans do not have this right. "White American" is not an ethnic group and so would not have a right of self-determination. You as an individual definitely do not have this right. Basically, there are necessary conditions which must apply in order to qualify as a group that can claim this right. Not all groups meet these conditions and not all people are members of groups which meet these conditions.

Batair claimed that your view was un-American. I've claimed that your view goes against the best parts of the American heritage, including from our first President. I'm just continuing to point out that the US Constitution treats all Americans equally, giving no preference to the interests or opinions of the posterity of our founders. I guess this doesn't bother you since you don't regard these claims as being an argument against your opinions. Now you are talking about secession or something. Just like I was saying to D0DN, it is sad how the MAGA view on things is disdainful of actual American values and history.

Okay. You're free to hold this belief, just as others are free to hold different beliefs from you. Do you agree with that?

But here's the more fundamental question: Why does your belief take precedent over others?

This question comes setting aside the obvious fact that "the founder's posterity" is actually a fairly small minority as most US citizens do NOT actually trace their lineage back to the founding colonies...

Also, if you don't like it, why don't you just leave?

I snipped your sentence where I did because I'm not sure that the second part about self-determination really hinges on the first part in my view, but is this right? I find your type of civic nationalism far more appealing than the kind of ethno-nationalism autozone seems to advocate, and I agree with you that it reflects the best part of the American tradition (although it does not not really describe America as a historical reality very well).

Nevertheless, it also seems like there's a reasonable argument for "white American" being an ethnicity distinct from other ethnic groups of American nationality, regardless of what should or not follow from that.

I guess this is off-topic it just stuck out to me because I've been reading a book on the topic of western demographic change and white ethnic/racial anxieties :P

I saw the same thing, and I'm not reading any recent books on the issue. I wasn't sure whether to bring it up or let it go. But since you brought it up...

I view "white American" as both an ethnic and cultural subgroup. At this point, most "white Americans" are distant enough from their previous ethnic group (German, Irish, Italian, whatever), with enough intermingling and whatever that they are more likely to claim "American" origins than anything tied to their more distant heritages. At this point, they aren't American with German (or Irish or whatever) heritage. They're just "American" (and white).

I'm not sure at what point this phenomenon emerges, but I'd suspect that it would probably take root around WW2. That would be late enough for the complete integration of others of European descent and for a clearer sense of national identity through white-ness to emerge (again, as a post-WW2 phenomenon, and then probably cementing itself with the Space Race).

But I would be interested in what the book you're reading might have to say about that, as I could be completely off base.

Can everyone agree that culture can be a factor but shouldn’t be the only factor in immigration? Wouldn’t it be more productive if everyone got here and then inched out?

Also, isn’t it better to help a right-of-center type to articulate his way toward the conservative position instead of frustrating him toward the right wing position?

America has no official cultuer. So no.

America has an emergent and dynamic culture, which is not the same as having no culture or a culture that doesn’t make value judgments.

I have no idea what that means.

I don't think it's my job to help anyone to move in one specific way or the other. I do, however, think that it is in the best interest of the broader culture that people accurately and honestly reevaluate their beliefs in light of new information.

everybody has in-group preference. however near, far, defined or blurred the lines are, this is a part of human nature. what's instinct and subliminal cannot be overcome. there will never come a time when, if given a choice to save the life of a close family member or 10 people across the world, we'd choose the former. this is a clear example of how tribalism cannot be overcome through utopian egalitarianism. the only group that favors small govt, with emphasis on the individual and the highest degree of self determination are white people. the very fact that we recognize the conservative parties as "white" parties and the leftist parties as "pro-minority" parties says everything.
of course, the only rational actors in this scenario are the minorities who are displaying their in group preference in voting for what's best for their group. whites otoh are the only ones trying to beat nature and overcome in-group preference, and look at the outcome. falling birthrates and self discrimination.
would you agree that minorities gain when the opposing majority is decreased? would you agree that evolution would reward humans who can accumulate the most resources leading to more procreation? and doesn't this inherently put the interests of those genealogically similar ahead of those genealogically foreign? maybe a certain group overrepresented in media by 2,000% would have, as minorities, a good reason to promote certain ideas that would favor themselves and their genes, especially after seeing what happened when they were a single minority within a mass majority in europe?
and this has nothing to do with an evil plot or some mass co-opted conspiracy. this is purely (tho speculation) perfectly rational and evolutionarily rewarded behavior. every ethnic group is doing exactly what they should be doing. except white people. imo.

It's interesting to me that you seem to not read or respond to what others write, and merely shoot off on other tangents and such things.

It's interesting how you've made this about "small government" after all of this other conversation that has nothing to do with "small government."

Yes, assuming that the opposing majority's decrease is matched with the minorities *actually* gaining. (If someone blows up the US, then the decrease in the majority's power is not matched by an increase in the minority's power.)

But they also gain when a supportive majority is increased. These aren't diametrically opposed outcomes.

Nope. Cause and effect are not properly linked here. Evolution does not necessarily favor "more procreation." Evolution favors "more survival." In some instances, that's more procreation, but in other instances it's better adaptability to changing environments. Furthermore, more is not always better from an evolutionary perspective in the sense that excess resources trends away from adaptability. For example, many plants actually grow better when they are in at least slightly stressful environments, as this causes the plant to "learn" efficiencies and adaptability.

Nope. In some ways, it should foster cooperation and intermixing, as those are the environments in which evolutionary advantages are most likely to take root.

Nope. This just shows you have no idea what you're talking about and are again rambling without addressing the topic at hand.

all of your questions were answered, with the exception of "why don't you just leave?" yeah, not gonna respond to a generic boomer meme.

Nope. You missed this one:

And in general your ramble doesn't actually address anything that's been brought up. They're side-steps where you're making up nonsense about an evolutionary theory you seem to know nothing about.

Ironically, that's what "white America" is often saying to the rest of us.

I did not say we have no culture but that we have no official one. Which means all culture should be welcome as long as they follow our laws.

i answered that in an earlier post.
i somewhat agree with your 2nd statement. i'm not an expert, and get all of my info from youtube. tf you want? i'm a high school drop out that thinks reading is boring.
disagree with last statement. that's "boomer america". boomers aren't white.