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.
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.
Some of Founding Fathers definitely believed that Liberalism was pretty much exclusively Anglo Protestant, or there really wasn't any evidence to them that any other group could do it (after all, they were the only ones to try). There would have been some Liberals that were full: Tabula Rasa and believed that all peoples could embrace Liberalism, but these were the more ideological ones like Jefferson.
I think that America has basically proven that Liberalism can universalize past that to include Germans, Catholics, Irish, by god even the French. But in order to do that you have to basically engage in a kind of Anglicization of these peoples, even if not demographically, then culturally.
And other demographics? The jury seems to be in on those, and it's not good.
I disagree. American Blacks are well capable of Liberalism when not ideologically captured by Leftism, and we're talking about a non-European population removed from sub-saharan Africa against their will. Hell, Christianity is quite popular in Africa and has (willingly) displaced many of the older religions. Same with Native Americans.
Where I think we can't actually make progress is on certain religions or ideologies. Explicitly anti-Liberal ideologies and religions like Leftism or Islam are problems because their extreme authoritarianism prevents them from tolerating individual dissent, let alone basic tennets of Liberalism.