for the obvious reason

as it would fly in the face of the rest of americana

>is assuming my entire argument after I've said what he's arguing against isn't what I said

and would go agaisnt the other founding fathers

ok, what is your argument with that quote?

Well, you agreed that so long as countries are more than 3/4ths white, then there is no real problem. As Jay said, the people and government of the US were basically made for each other. Taking this in a broad stroke first, the people and government are the same. __For him__, does that include Jews? I'm sure it did. But remember also what I've said of international Jews and average Jews. You may be Jewish, but you certainly don't seem to be of the same mind as George Soros and others. I would say there are ingroup preferences at play, as you've even alluded to your own ingroup preferences.

The philosophy is that a government should not be ethnically different from its people. For Jay, did that include Jews? Yes. Does it for really anyone of the camp I am in? No

The philosophy is the same, regardless of who you're including. The difference is where the line is drawn

There are also "international" goyim

equally wrong

the most important part of your statement

is that you simply won't consider me part of intrinsic fabric of the nation

and since you believe it must be ruled by that fabric and for that fabric alone, I'm not welcome

Ethnostates throughout history have had small minorities

They are just especially small

And I don't think you would/should hold office

you tell me of my "ingroup preferences", where you're alluding to me prefering a jewish spouse

typos because I haven't slept yet

since yesterday

all good

but you're now going beyond our agreed criteria of >3/4s white

you're now designating jews as nonwhite, restricting any given nonwhite minority to a certain threshhold and then preventing them from holding office

you've went way beyond what Israel does

and beyond what I'd like to see it do

the ingroup preference is much stronger on your end

I don't deny that it is. Ingroup preferences historically arise as a response. Knowing whites will become a minority is a warning for soemthing bad, which you agreed to. In this way, whites -- as well as all ethnicities -- should seek to not be minorities.

how does classifying jews as nonwhite and restricting them from office optimal to that goal?

It's more so in response to the doings and opinions of international Jews

if you're creating policy as we go

why not just create a policy which prevents the "international" action

just write in a law about maintaining a certain demographic threshhold

it's no crazier than what you've proposed

If you really boil things down, most any of my opinions politically can be summed in this:
Humans were created and bred in tribal environments and lived in such for the past 200,000 years or so, which is a fraction of a fraction in the evolutionary timescale. Humans have had next to no time to evolve away from tribalism. Multiethnic societies are very new and historically are torn apart (and a fair amount of the time viscerally) due to some ethnic tension. It is best to avoid multiethnic society to keep deep-seated tribal tendencies at bay

And that this has been the way, of course, for millennia until very recently

There is some esoteric Traditional knowledge which has been thrown out with Modernism

we disagree to the degree to which that is true and to the degree that we're willing to invest in it being true

as I said earlier, few studies exist to form a solid conclusion

I'm not an evolutionary anthropologist

I don't think you are either

Well, with what little knowledge there is about human nature, history is not a liar

looking at history

I think the US was great