The left has advanced an overt war on white civilization through the media, universities, and other mediums. Their primary attack is the reshaping of reality through words. "Islamophobic sex crimes propaganda fuels the far right," or "Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racializing crime," or "UK's racist dog whistle politics vilifies British Pakistani Muslims." In all cases the methodology is the same: take a legitimate cause and shackle it to -isms and -phobias that they have programmed us to recoil from.
Some normal people are naturally compelled to oppose the left, but the critical question is how. In the Gamergate era, the anti-left took a "no, but" strategy that denied association to ism-phobias first, to ward off any disreputable politics from sticking to legitimate causes. "No, I'm not sexist. I just think that some ultra-feminist game devs have a twisted view of male/female relations that's producing terrible games."
This strategy is self-defeating because as everyone can subconsciously sense, it concedes part of the opponent's point while trying to argue against it. People with functioning eyes perceive that the ultra-feminist game devs are mostly women, whether they admit it or not. Therefore, to oppose them is to drive women out of the gaming industry. Targeting women, either inadvertently or purposefully, is sexist. To hedge around this obvious logical chain with "some not all" boilerplate or sops to "true equality" or shrines to Jade Raymond appears deceitful and weak, or even worse, shows self-deception: a person who is so delusional that they can't face the consequences of their actions.
As the anti-left has hardened into the online right, more people adopt the "yes, and" response every year, which acknowledges the implications of their position and says, "so what? It's the truth." In the Gamergate issue this would be, "yes, most of these women should leave gaming. It's better off without them. The greatest era of gaming was created by white nerds in baggy shirts." Internal consistency, courage, and accuracy are the power of a real movement.
Many people on the online right see Trump and the American populist movement as belonging to "no, but." He's actually more in the "yes, and" camp. Beyond all his paeans to this and that celebrity or demographic, he is threatening to the left because the character of his movement is a revival of American self-interest, and his strongest base is a revival of white self-interest. The medium is the message. Anyone watching a Trump rally can see it. White conservatives aren't standing there glumly taking their medicine from Mitt Romney, they're celebrating their power, culture, and future. That's why MAGA has spawned countless alt-right spinoffs. Whether or not Trump cucks out on H-1Bs, he has awakened the American consciousness.
Now Britain is at the crossroads, with reports that over a million white British schoolgirls may have been raped by Pakistanis. This is now open reality: the whole country has been raped. Will this be the start of a sea change in the British public where the answers become, "yes, I dislike Muslims, and for good reason," or "yes, there are too many brown immigrants in Britain, and they should go home"? Hopefully it will, because the survival of the nation hangs on that question.
How do you feel about the longtime immigration guidelines of "white persons of good character"? It's not a white supremacist policy, but from your viewpoint it probably is.
The alt right had plenty of reasonable, measured people in it like James Allsup and Jared Taylor, but they were driven off with Operation Chokepoint debanking ops and feds like Spencer and Fuentes that intentionally provoked the media.
I feel that from everything I've seen "white" is not the same to the English as it was to the Americans. I've been literally handed quotes from Ben Franklin where he says that the US is probably going to have to be a white country because Catholics and Germans can't be trusted to rule over a Liberal society. Even Enoch Powel made statements about how Britain should remain a white country, and in the very next sentence rebuked Polish migration because it would change the character of the country.
White only means "People of any majority European heritage from the Iberian Peninsula North to the Ural Mountains West" basically in places where Anglos began mixing with other European populations, where as "White" remained predominantly a stand in for "British" in GB.
So on the basis of definitions, I don't think that such a claim makes sense. Not to mention, what we would perceive as non-whites were made citizens of the US (and their respective states) even if they didn't get legally immigrated into the US. Normally it involved some kind of Aglicanization, including Indians, the Spanish, Meztizos, the French, Freed Blacks, and so on and so forth. This is something that the dissenting opinion in Dredd Scott brings up: the decision stripped US citizenship from people who where already citizens, including people who were alleged to be non-white (which varied from state to state). Very famously, after the Civil War, an Asian family was declared White due to their integration into the larger white community of their town in a rather difficult Mississippi Supreme Court decision. They weren't white in California, but they were white in Mississippi, and the court found that their whiteness came from the fact that they were culturally assimilated and integrated. And this was while Mississippi had a One Drop rule.
So, even if we're talking about the definition of "White" it's not being used in the way that the American National Socialists.
But let's actually talk about what White Supremacy actually is for a second. It is an explicit Racialist ideology which requires that "White" populations be given explicit protections and privileges not afforded to other populations, regardless of any other status (including citizenship). You don't actually see this ideology in the early US. Where you see it is only AFTER the Civil War as the Whigs were transferring over to the Democratic Party, and using the pre-cursors to White Nationalism in the form of "White Leagues", "White Unions", and infamously the KKK. Officially, White Supremacy is actually illegal in the US under the Civil Rights amendments. The whole point behind Plessy v. Ferguson was that equal protection was not being maintained with discriminatory segregationist practices, especially since they were obviously inconsistent (Homer Plessy is non-white in Alabama, but not in Mississippi, but he's more white than Fuentes, he's only 1/8th black) Segregation was allowed under the (false) assumption that so long as the races were treated equally under the law, there was no issue.
By the letter of the law, the US wasn't allowed to be a White Supremacist country. The point was that this was obviously violated under a conspiracy of silence during the Democratic (former Whig) seizure of the South. White Supremacism was illegal during Jim Crow, but it was ignored because it protected Democratic control over the South, just as the Democrats would do with other ethnic/racial groups in other areas where the Dems operated out of.
So, White Supremacy in the US only has one period of time where it's actually exists: Reconstruction. And even then, there's a question about the legitimacy of either the military governments or the state governments. White Supremacism, outside of that, is an ideology that is mostly done by conspirators maintaining their own power through political violence. Even variants of the KKK rejected (publicly) White Supremacy and supported a much more toned down version of what you could call: White Affinity Groups. The problem is that these groups were constantly tied to terrorism and actual White Supremacy, which most of the American public found unpalatable.
White Supremacy outside of Reconstruction really only exists within the American Nazi movement. And if you are doing that, you've got to accept that you are calling for a Socialist Revolution in the US to effect Social/National/Racial Justice, and abolishing the constitution... because the constitution is a Liberal document.
That is a very long way to say: no it's not a White Supremacist policy because it's not actually White Supremacism. It's actually a Liberal policy, that doesn't believe that ethnic groups outside of the Anglos, and maybe the Celts, are capable of Liberalism.
The thing is, I think that James' concern that the alt-right is absolutely over-flowing with Feds is correct. If there is a real alt-right, it's not going to do anything because it's controlled opposition. And this was an argument that even Goldwater supporters were bringing up. We know that the FBI was infiltrating not only the Klan, but the Black Panthers and CPUSA. How much was a defensive operation to stop terrorism before it started, and how much of it was controlled opposition is hard to say. Even the John Birch Society got infiltrated, and they were just Conservatives.
So do you share that viewpoint or believe it has any merit?
While this is true for any organization like Unite the Right, mass movements against H-1B and Great Replacement ideology show there is a strong base of support to preserve America's current composition, namely, majority white.
You mean my viewpoint? Yes, I share my viewpoint, I did it with you. Yes I believe it has merit for the reasons I said.
If you mean the viewpoint that the US is a White Supremacist country and that it's immigration system is White Supremacism, no I don't share it, and I don't think it has merit. It requires a bastardization of the word "White" and then an intentional misapplication of an ideology that was not present at the time.
I don't disagree at all. I'm not even sure that a demographic replacement is looked positively on most minority communities. Maybe locally at most. But if you tried to argue to your average American Black normie that Alaska needs more Blacks, he would look at you confused, say "I suppose that could be cool?", and if you asked him to go he would say, "Absolutely fucking not."
Islam is different because it is a religious ideology and doesn't really care about the race of it's adherence, and will openly radical towards the Islamification of the entire planet.
The difference is that the majority of white Americans might balk at the comment initially, but could be easily reasoned into it ("If you want to preserve values, you probably can't do that without stronger assimilation than we have now, or you can't replace the people who's values those belong to").
But, this goes back to why I've been talking about American Ethnogenisis. It is starting to take place particularly around MAGA, and an American Ethnic group is actually identifying itself as multi-racial because they have loyalties along American values and culture. This isn't different from what you would see in an Imperial identity/demographic.
No, I obviously mean the viewpoint you say the Founding Fathers believed that America would only survive if it was dominated by Anglos and possibly Celts.