-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Also, you don't have to murder or kick out anyone. Impose a non-announced White only policy for immigration. Give further tax breaks to people who know a certain amount of English words. Pay people with 130 I.Q.+ to have children. Devise a tricky citizenship test. You'll have a combination of less non-Whites entering and less non-Whites choosing to stay. Those are things I've thought of off the top of my head.
I support a total moratorium on all immigration outside of around 100,000 a year for highly specialized scientists/engineers/whatever so no argument here. But what about the people already here? Non hispanic whites are only around 50% of the births in this country--demographic change in the US is a fait accompli. If you care about the fate of white people (or just people in general) we're going to have to find a way to make this work or it's just going to continue to escalate into outright violence. And again, there have been multiethnic societies of the past that have done well, and they did it by having all sorts of mechanisms to minimize conflict. As an example, lowering the stakes of national politics by devolving political power to the states would help a LOT imo.
Historically, this is precisely how Whites have thought. Again, it's only due to the authoritarian jam-down of the left, the story about racist oppression and whatnot, that has all of these Progressive types voting against their racial group. The Jewish legacy media, the Progressive schools, the anti-racism laws, the black-balling of scholarly opposition to the narrative etc.-, they have to have virtually an ideological stranglehold on most institutions just to maintain the narrative. These Progressive Whites are abnormal, brainwashed people.Think about it. What kinds of people do you get on the Progressive left? Is bright purple hair normal? Is tattoos everywhere normal? Is calling people who disagree with you literally Hitler a normal thing to do? What about dozens of random piercings? What about furries? Bronies?Sure, it's hard to get people to vote as a block, but getting them *not* to vote as a block is even harder. Sure, you'll get some collateral damage. But people's intention is to vote for their racial in-group, and there will be the odd exception (unless brainwashing is involved, as is the case with Progressives).
It just isn't that simple for whites, who are an incredibly diverse group across the country. You can get whites in rural Texas and rural Georgia to vote as a block. You can get whites in Manhattan to vote as a block. Can you get those two groups to vote as a block for the same party? Their hatreds for each other far outstrip any ill will they feel towards people of other races. Whites are currently split about 60-40. For all practical purposes, that may as well be 50/50. How do we unite them all under one banner?
No doubt there is a lot of brainwashing. It's amazing how conservative white people still are given that every important institution in the country is controlled by left hands down.
Again, the top personal identifier, out of all racial groups (including Whites), is race/ethnicity (albeit for millennials). Please explain to me, because you'd be the first person on this site to even address it, how people could rate race as their most important personal identifier (by an overwhelming margin for most races), and then not vote based on it?
When it comes to millennial whites in particular you have to wonder how much of that racial identification isn't in the sense you want, but in the sense of "I recognize my privilege as a white person."
But yeah I don't disagree with you that many people vote based on their identity, which itself is heavily influenced by race. In a society where all 320 million Americans of different races have to have almost all of their rules decided by one federal government that is a massive problem. In a better version of America where a man who is proud to be black and only wants to interact with black people is allowed to live in a black neighborhood, send his kids to a black school, and be have most of his rules set by black leaders---who DONT set rules for whitey---this would be much less of a problem.
How do we do this? DEVOLUTION OF POWER. I know, I know, it isn't ALL that simple. But enough people prefer the company of their own race that given enough time internal migration patterns would pretty much sort people into living with their own race. Multicultural places would also exist, and that's fine too.
I cannot emphasize enough how much giving as much power to as local a level as possible would help things. Example: take a look at the 2016 election. America pretty much voted 50/50, with Clinton winning by 2%. How many states were decided by less than 2 points? 6, or about 10%. Now take a look at the county map (https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president) just play around...how many counties were decided by less than 2%? Far fewer than 10%.
Now look at the PRECINCT map (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html). How many of those were decided by less than 2%? Almost none. And of those that were, almost all of them border heavily red and heavily blue precincts suggesting that within them there would also be a stark divide.
Do you see the point? In general, the more local you go, the more harmonious you get. The way to deescalating political conflict in the USA is localism, not white nationalism. My ideal society is not very likely, but it's a lot more likely than a critical mass of Americans becoming white nationalists.
Tangent: Young white men must be extremely republican. Trump somehow pulled a win with whites 18-24, and he sure as shit did not come anywhere close to winning college aged white women.
