Maybe you should elaborate on what you find "racist" about my positions.
I believe the term I used was "thinly veiled racial manifestos". You have repeatedly referred to demographic replacement of "Heritage Americans" - a term which sometimes is used to imply
membership in a group of people with certain traditional American beliefs and other times
possibly Americans of European heritage. The context often sounds a lot like a defeated White Nationalist who used to carry a Tiki torch while chanting "YOU WILL NOT REPLACE US!" and "BLOOD AND SOIL!" and now dejectedly says "Yeah, they're going to replace us." Maybe you actually mean the diversity of morality and what societies hold sacrosanct, but then you go and regularly conflate ethical and ethnic diversity.
Perhaps it stands out most when you use terms like "demographic replacement", as demography typically doesn't take into consideration things like morality, values, or ethics. If your real problem is people who do not hold traditional American ethics, I'd expect you to say that. Instead you tend to focus on demographics.
Your oft-repeated position on identity politics seems to imply a support for racial separatism to avoid conflict, if not outright superiority. I.e., your regularly repeated refrain that diversity and proximity leads to conflict. Sure, there are some kinds of diversity for which that is true but the implication always seems to be diversity of race or national origin.
If read in the most generous way your posts might be reasonable, but you seem to be intentionally riding the line. As during the census discussion when you just couldn't quite bring yourself to come out and say "Screw the Constitution, let's do things MY way," yet still kept dancing right up to the line and dropping blunt hints in that direction. My impression is that you aren't posting what you really want to say knowing it would be soundly rejecte,) so instead you rephrase it slightly trying to make it palatable. From a lot of the responses in this thread trying on "white nationalist" as a sobriquet I think you're making progress.
It is entirely possible I'm misreading you, or that you just don't know the definition and common uses of words like "demographic", but since you've always struck me as a well-read, intelligent guy I thought I'd ask for clarification.
And to everyone in this thread laughing about "Ha! I must be a 'white' 'nationalist'! I'm so edgy!" ... okay, you might be, but I hope not. Just because you're wrongly labeled a certain way by the left doesn't mean you need to lean into it and become that.
For some time I've wondered if the constant refrain from the Right to decry things they disliked as socialist caused more and more people on the left who supported those policies (which by and large fell short of socialism) to shrug and say "fine, then if we're going to be called socialist then we'll lean into it and call ourselves that!" which quickly morphed into "let's be actual Socialists," Not so many years ago that was a dirty word, but now it is entirely acceptable to claim that title on the national stage (so long as it is softened with "democratic" first). Yeah, I get that there has long been a strain of real socialism and communism in the left, but by and large that was rejected ... until it wasn't.
I don't want to see the same thing happen on the Right with crap like white nationalism.
