Most popular news anchor in America openly advocates for white nationalism

Sure.

Well, by your recent comments, we can safely assume that they are not an important part of America.

What, will the greedy immigrants take over the impoverished n*groes' jobs?

I'm referring to indigenous Americans.

It's a pity we can't airdrop you into Detroit.

I'm glad you understand now.

Well they're not exactly important and have a lot of problems but they are part of America yes.

Literally yes.

Ok so what's your point exactly? Liberals always make this dumb argument not realising it makes my point for me- That didn't turn out so well for the Natives did it? White Americans don't want to be replaced like the American Indians were!

Tucker Carlson needs to do his homework: the Immigration Act 1965 did not skew democracy in favour of the Democratic Party just cuz it opened opportunity for Eastern Europeans and Asian immigrants. it doesn't matter what country you come from - immigrants vote Democrat.

white Western European immigrants vote Democrat and they did so before 1965 came into law.

'European immigrants in the early 20th century affected public support for the Democratic Party and redistribution on the county level during the 2006-2018 period. They found that more European immigrants in the past led to more support for the Democratic Party and for redistribution on the country level today.'

'1928 was the first national election when immigrant-heavy counties swung to support Democrats because it was the first national election after the National Origins Quota Act permanently cut legal immigration from Europe...'

https://www.cato.org/blog/do-immigrants-make-united-states-more-left-wing

(i'm not going to copy the whole article otherwise would be tl;dr)

lol

You directly alienated them with your first comment.

You're confusing me now, we're still talking about historically white-nationalist immigration practices, right?

The Great Replacement is a myth.

Ah, but the Democrat party back then was the populist party of southern whites. They've always been a identity politics party: they've just gone through something of a shift where they now focus on minorities when the GOP kept on beating them. Observe:

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism-msna305591

I'm glad you understand now.

Well they're not exactly important and have a lot of problems but they are part of America yes.

Literally yes.

Ok so what's your point exactly? Liberals always make this dumb argument not realising it makes my point for me- That didn't turn out so well for the Natives did it? White Americans don't want to be replaced like the American Indians were!

it wasn't tho. the last Republic liberal was Theodore Roosevelt and that was before 1928

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/amp/How-Democrats-and-Republicans-switched-beliefs-9226115.php

did you look at my article? do you know why white Western European immigrants vote Democrat? it's because they are pro immigration policy that benefits them as an immigrant. if you're an immigrant you don't typically vote for policies that do not.

here since you missed it:

'When the Democratic Party was the laissez-faire party, immigrants voted for it. When it became the interventionist party, immigrants continued to vote for it. They did so because the Democratic Party has been more pro-immigration than its competitors during most of American history.'

immigrants have their own issues to worry about being an immigrant; it doesn't matter what country you are from.

preserving the 'whiteness' of America isn't number one on the list tho; more like the right to remain in the country.

What exactly does replaced mean? Your culture will be inherited to their kids whether or not they are white.

What comment?

No I was referring to how immigration negatively impacts African Americans.

Whatever you want to call it, the white percentage of the population is decreasing and this will change the country, that is simply a fact. Even Biden and the MSM acknowledge that. Whether it's deliberate or not is a different argument.

Uh ... My post is pretty much making the point you have said ??? Eg from your own link

"The democrats were conservatives partly dominated by the slave owning south"

In the 60s they slowly began to morph into the party they are todaym around that time, non white immigration exploded which the Democrats further capitalised on. You've literally proved my point.

On your last comment which I've put in bold what are you trying to say?


If my grandkids are ethnically different from me and they grow up in a different culture then they will be very different from me other than some genetic similarity.

Also in terms of Community, demographic change hugely impacts upon the culture etc of a given area. Eg my Grandad is from London and finds the area completely different from what it used to be.

(,I'm not saying it's wrong per se only that it's different. Eg being a white American in the 1950s is different to being a Asian American in the 2020s even if they're related. Things change and not necessarily for the better,)

"America is a predominantly white (and Christian) country and should stay that way. (bolded by me)"
Say whatever you want, that is alienating to non-White or non-Christian Americans.

That is off-topic.

Okay? I don't care as long as white people are not being genocided. Why should you care? You're not American.

Or do you not want your precious white brethren to be overpowered by the coloureds?

A majority of them sure. But not all and this hasn't always been the case and is largely due to hostile anti white propoganda.

Well it's not, you were saying that Tucker and I were white nationalist for opposing immigration hence me saying that immigration harms African Americans which are Americans too which we also don't want to get rid of unlike actual white Nationalists.

Would you care if say Japan gradually got replaced by scousers? I wouldn't want that to happen even though Japan is non white. It's because I value Japanese culture and yes culture is tied to race to some degree. Observe the liberal pro immigration argument about not wanting white people cooking authentic foreign food.

Additionally and more importantly as a Christian I not want my religion to be replaced in America for obvious reasons.

I want everyone to have a home and sense of community and to have big healthy Christian families regardless of race with good jobs and safe neighborhoods. Mass Immigration jeopardizes that.

But if you were to have children with someone, you would have only got to that point if your values were fairly closely aligned. And you'd probably raise your kid in those values, and that'll have influence on your child. That is pretty much the most you can do. I don't see why the ethnicity matters much at that point.

Sure they could diverge from these and "embrace" non-white cultures or different values, but so could a white child of yours. It depends who they associate with and what spaces they engage with. You get white converts to Islam. My maternal grandparents are your typical working-class BNP-aligned people, not really close to my (or really my parent's) politics at all. It's unclear what preserving ethnicity specifically achieves. It would be a different question if these immigrants were massively dragging the country's politics "away" from "Western values", but that isn't really happening on any reasonable scale. Plenty of people with conservative parents that have integrated with the culture and probably are not going to raise their kids as they themselves were raised.

Ultimately, someone's race doesn't really prescribe what kind of values they have, it is finer determined than that. As long as your values are preserved, I think that's the most important thing.

I would rather my descendants be non white and Christian than a white ultra progressive sure. (This is one of many reasons why we're not white Nationalists @Vapordave)

That said the part in bold in your above post emphasizes my point entirely. Suppose your non white parent hadn't been in the country and you were born from 2 white parents. It is much more probable you would have better Relations and more in common with that side of your family.

And yes, there will always be people that rebel against their family or whatever but this is much harder and less likely in culturally and ethnically homogeneous countries.

As for your point about immigrants raising their kids differently and integrating to "western" (read liberal) values I don't think that's a positive thing either. Liberalism is Anti culture. I saw a picture recently that sums this up beautifully some teacher asked everyone in her multicultural multiracial class what being an American meant. The class drew a picture of spider man, McDonald's, Nike , and something about "being nice". That's not culture that's Anti Culture.

As an ethnic minority living in the UK, if you said that to me about the UK, I would feel pretty alienated and unwelcome.

No. I said you and Tucker were white nationalist for lamenting over that fact that race-exclusive immigration was abolished. I never brought modern (mass) immigration into this.

Not particularly because any instance where it completely destroys Japanese culture or replaces ethnic Japanese is unrealistic.

Okay.

Again, we are not talking about mass immigration as it is off topic. We are talking about white protectionism/nationalism.

Well I'll put it like this. If I went to live in say Pakistan and the Pakistanis there said that they want Pakistan to remain a Muslim country with a majority Pakistani population I wouldn't begrudge them that and personally would find that entirely reasonable.

Ok. I disagree that thstvmakes us WN see above post.

Well let's say it was realistic? Would you oppose it? And the huge cultural changes and ethnic displacement is very real in America. Compare California to 60 years ago for instance.

I don't think it is unrelated. Abolishing the 1965 act lead to the mass immigration and societal changes of today.

I'd think homogeneity is more likely to prompt rebellion, to be honest.

People are well in their right not to adopt them provided they don't conflict in any major way.

I don't think there's a great risk of British culture "fading away" at all due to immigration.

It'll evolve and integrate external influences, just as it has done for eons.

I maintain that, in my eyes, you are white nationalist and none of your arguments contrary to that have satisfied me.

I do oppose cultural terraforming but that doesn't realistially happen passively.

I don't know what to compare, you have to spell it out for me please.

It remains a completely different discussion.

Uh ... My post is pretty much making the point you have said ??? Eg from your own link

"The democrats were conservatives partly dominated by the slave owning south"

In the 60s they slowly began to morph into the party they are todaym around that time, non white immigration exploded which the Democrats further capitalised on. You've literally proved my point.

On your last comment which I've put in bold what are you trying to say?


If my grandkids are ethnically different from me and they grow up in a different culture then they will be very different from me other than some genetic similarity.

Also in terms of Community, demographic change hugely impacts upon the culture etc of a given area. Eg my Grandad is from London and finds the area completely different from what it used to be.

(,I'm not saying it's wrong per se only that it's different. Eg being a white American in the 1950s is different to being a Asian American in the 2020s even if they're related. Things change and not necessarily for the better,)

Well I disagree with that label and as you know I don't particularly shy away from controversial positions. Again, as a Christian worshipping Whiteness is idolatry which is another reason I don't like BLM.

If we have to have immigration I would rather black Christians immigrate to the UK than white pagans. If that makes me a white Nationalist then we can agree to disagree I guess (but you're wrong )

Do you think that the societal changes such as increased immigration have happened passively? Of course not. No there has been varying degrees of resistance: some justified, some entirely indefensible.

If you go to Japan do you want to see Japanese people and Japanese culture or do you want to see fat Americans and McDonald's completely take over.

Well, it isn't. Abolishing the 1965 act came with consequences. You can draw s direct line between that and present day policies.