"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.
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.
This misses the point. Yes, you are correct: natural rights apply to everyone in the country. However, racial demography can be controlled through immigration restrictions, which do not violate natural rights.
Slaves weren't Americans, so they can't be counted as Americans. You may as well count the entire native population as "Americans." Freemen were Americans, but well under 3% of the population as mentioned earlier.
Btw, I'm waiting for you to show the heated period debate over Irish, Germans, and Spaniards as white or not.
The MacArthur Constitution is the rule of law in Japan. Are you alleging the Japanese do not follow the rule of law?
Some policies and institutions are inherently incompatible with Liberal philosophy. One of those is Slavery. Either Liberalism dies, or slavery does. They are mutually exclusive because slavery violates the base premise of Liberalism: you are your own property. That means: you can't be someone else's property. Liberalism can not albeit slavery, and it will always exist as a conflict point until one or the other is abolished. Slavery must die, or Liberalism must die, they can't co-exist in perpetuity.
Race Control (Racialism) is another. Racialism is, effectively, a Leftist concept that is attempting to homogenize multiple ethnic groups under a single political abstraction that can be weaponized as a political bloc the move Socialism forward, preferably Socializing that bloc. This is in total defiance to Liberalism's parochial attitude towards individuals and the communal bonds they cultivate. The point behind race control is that it rejects the point about Liberalism being of a shared value system, and supplants it with race; rejecting the idea that race doesn't guarantee values.
In fact, that is the base premise of every racialist argument: Race, and only race, is the foundation of any and all culture. Race is the penultimate factor in the consideration of any behavior, as all behaviors and all cultures are an extension of racial genetics alone. Therefore, Liberalism's universalism is inherently impossible. Only specific races will ever be capable of holding the Anglo-Saxon values on individuals and property hold. Hence, Liberalism and Racialism are fundamentally incompatible.
On a side note that you might come back to: ethnic protectionism (and national protectionism) and race control are wholly different things.
This just isn't true. Even though Leftists talk about Chattel Slavery, American slaves were never truly chattel. You couldn't actually just shoot a slave in the head if you felt like it. Slaves were still part of the American Liberal system. They were still granted some legal and judicial protections, even if they were not granted individual autonomy or political power. They were still American, and they were still seen as American. Just American slaves. And again: the slavers themselves were hoping to "civilize" Africans into that Liberal framework through slavery. Slaves weren't being deported like foreigners, they were being intentionally integrated by the slavers themselves. They are American.
"But you just said Liberalism and Slavery is a contradiction! How could a slave be in a liberal system?!!"
Yes, see above. That's why the US had to come to blows over it. Liberalism and Slaveocracy are institutions in total opposition to one another. One had to die.
The American constitution was a desperate compromise that couldn't hope to resolve the issue, and never did. It was amended to end the contradiction after 2% of the population was dead.
If you want to see the debate over whether Spaniards are white or not, go to /pol . That issue is still well and truly up for debate, even within the modern vernacular. How are Hispanics people of color, but Spaniards aren't? That's a good question.
Similarly, if the the US is a white supremacist country, why did it actively discriminate against Irish and Germans? Well, it's not white supremacist. It's also not a white nationalist country.
"White" is, and has always been, a fairly bizarre British (then American) racial construct. There was never a heated argument about who, what, when, and where were the strict confines of white in some sort of "Whiteness Debates" that presidential candidates had. The term has always been colloquially defined. You can even find Enoch Powell referring to the importance of a "White" population in Britain, but then also warding against an overwhelming German population that would be a problem for the exact same reason, because even if the Germans are 'White', they sure as shit aren't British.
Even in the Jim Crow South, "White" varied state to state; and there is one strange incident where a Japanese family moved from California (due to racial discrimination against "Orientals" specifically) to Mississippi and had MS recognize them as a "White" family under the purposes of the law, even though the state itself was a "One Drop Rule" state.
I'm not going the Noel Ignaev argument and saying "Poors or immigrants can't be white". I'm saying the term isn't clearly demarked. It means different things at different times; and even within the "White" race, there are some whites that are considered inherently inferior, because it's a bastardization of British, or even just English.
People who have laws mandated on them by force, will reinterpret those laws to mean something than what's written on the page. If you do it long enough, everyone thinks it's the law. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear that all federal gun control is illegal. But if you pretend to be retarded and change the definition of what words mean in your head, then actually the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to weapons of war!
Japan is not a Liberal country. Nor is Sri Lanka, Romania, or Russia. This is because the people are not Liberal, and do not make Liberal considerations, even if words resemble things that Americans would find appealing.