"I'm a half-Asian that grew up in a solid red area and I never thought about race until high school so idk what the director of Elemental is talking about" Silence
"Max Landis seems like a jerk but the accusations against him don't meet the definition of rape" This resulted in a girl getting extremely pissed off so I had to make peace for 15 minutes
"Hunter Biden is obviously laundering money through the painting hobby he started last week" Tepid agreement
"Male and female characters obviously behave differently and you can't just swap them into each other's stories" "Hahaaa I don't know, I just like this character doing her thing"
"Obviously cancel culture exist, we wouldn't be able to have any frank conversations if they were publicized to millions of people" "Yeah fair point" Silence
"If that female pastor is ordained, that's illegal according to church rules" Crossed arms staring at the ceiling
Before a few years ago, I've never had the problem of being too obviously right in political discussions. That's because I used to cling to dumb ideas myself, like the Iraq invasion, but at least I had a little wriggle room (democracy is a good thing for the Middle East! just give it time!). There are too many positions on the left today that are indefensible if you're not a psychopath. I guess I'm thankful my lib friends are still genuine friends and retain a shred of integrity.
Wow, you're wrong about literally all of that.
First, an ethno-state is not a Liberal state. The US was a Liberal Revolutionary Republic, which is based off Civic Nationalism. So, that's an inherent failure.
Second, you're claiming that that US was a European Ethnostate until 1990, without recognizing that the Hart-Cellar Act was passed in the 60's. So that's another failure of understanding your own narrative.
Third, there is no such thing as a European Ethnostate, because there is no such thing as a European Ethnicity. That's an ignorant American construct that exists only in your head.
Fourth, Anglo was never the largest ethnic group in the United States, even at the time of it's founding. Already the Americans would have been emerging into their own created ethnic amalgamations like Quaker. Anglo-Saxon, not Anglo, would have been the largest, at the time of it's founding, but that very quickly changed with Ulster-Scott (Scotch-Irish) and Germans. Ethnic Germans are actually more numerous in the US than ethnic English right now.
You don't know about American history enough to address the topic you're convinced you understand.
I don't know what definitions you've invented to make this work, but the US limited immigration to white persons of good character for a long time, making the country a functionally white nation. You can call that whatever you like.
Japan is also a liberal democratic republic that preserves its own racial makeup, so file them under that label too (TBD).
The rest of your post hinges on this so I'll leave it at that for now.
Except the term "white" was being used in a British sense rather than a modern sense (which implies all ethnic Europeans).
The British concept of "white" was basically Anglo-Saxon, which is why there were arguments about whether the Irish were white, whether the Spanish were white, whether or not the Germans could co-exist (or even be allowed to immigrate as a 'white' group). There was also the question of what to do with the Ulster-Scots whom were white, but were a clearly inferior ethnic group of whites to the Anglos. Again, because white isn't an ethnicity.
The US was barely a white country by their own standards at the time. They wouldn't have considered it a white country even then. Especially since there were a lot of Indians, Africans, and non-British people's roaming around within the US.
All of that is wrong. Japan is a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy.
That's not a Liberal state. Frankly, there are no Liberal states in Asia. Philosophical Liberalism isn't based from there, and it's something these populations have ever enculturated themselves to. It's a foreign idea.
Japan is not Liberal, and does not embrace Civic Nationalism. it's at least closer to an ethno-state, as the internal distinctions in Japan between different ethnic groups have been homogenized since the 1800's. Since Japan does not embrace either Liberalism nor Civic Nationalism, it's going to understand that it's indigenous people (regardless of political position) take priority... which is something that I don't think any White Nationalist is capable of grasping.
OK, let's go with this premise. Is that not a functionally "British" white nation?
Show me these serious disputes about the whiteness of Irish and Germans.
"A lot" = less than 3%. I'm not counting slaves for obvious reasons.
The Japanese constitution has all the human rights guarantees of the American constitution. Is that not liberal in your mind? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan
No, that's not the point of the American Experiment. The entire argument from the British was that Americans, as colonials, did not have "Ancient English Rights and Liberties" that the English had because, despite being English colonists, they were not in England.
So, the Americans embraced Liberalism fully and rationalized English Rights as Universal Rights. That's the whole point. Suddenly it wasn't just the English who had English rights. It could be English, French, Germans, Scotts, Irish, Welsh, Catholics, Lutherans, Quakers, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Jews, Atheists, Indians, Spaniards, etc. They just had to abide by the American Liberal value-system.
Hence, why the US can never be anything but a Liberal country. That's the whole premise for it's existence. Isolating out Liberal values to one group and not another is antithetical to the premise of Liberalisms universality. It can't be a White country, it can only be a Liberal one. What the founding fathers weren't sure about, which is what no one was sure about, was whether or not English rights could be universalized at all. How could a German even understand, let alone embrace, a universalized rights & values system (that was divorced from it's ethnic component)?
Why? You have to count slaves. "Hur dur slaves don't have political rights" doesn't mean they aren't still part of the American nation. Especially when there's tons of people already attempting to free them, and making them citizens. Freemen (both black and mixed race) were property owners, voters, political officials, and church leaders.
Even under the understanding of the slave owners themselves, their idea was to civilize Africans through slavery so that they could be integrated into society. This is why Lincoln was one of the people to come up with a resettlement program from American Blacks: they were never intended to be re-settled. They were intended to be integrated into the American structure; even if they were segregated (which was understood to be for the peaceful coexistence of communities... like a kind of early multi-culturalism).
The imposition of a government as the result of a conquest by Liberals, does not make the state, let alone the nation, a Liberal one. You might as well argue that Iraq is a Liberal country. Or that Afghanistan was a Liberal country.
Even the "Liberal" party in Japan recognizes the issue:
"Although democracy and liberalism emphasized under the control of the Allied occupation should be respected and upheld as a new principle for Japan, the initial objective of the occupying forces of the Allies was mainly to demoralize the State; therefore, many of the reforms implemented by the forces including those of the constitution, education and other governmental systems have been unjustly suppressing the notion of the State and patriotism of the people and excessively disuniting the national sovereignty."
The country has the veneer of a Liberal state, but it is a highly illiberal state with illiberal traditions and culture. Not only that, but it is dominated not by Liberalism, but by Keynesian Socialism, which is how American Leftists co-opted the term.
It is an illiberal nation, conquered and occupied by Fabian Socialism.