Voting for Nationalist Parties from a white POV

1) Under democratic rules, the majority decides and the minority obeys... Given that...
- Most nations with white majorities are expected to become white minorities within the next decades (the date for USA is between 2042 and 2050)
and given that...
- Other ethnicities tend to vote for parties that support taxation to fund welfare for their own benefit...
we can conclude that...
3) under non-white majority rule, whites can expect more taxation
4) as most of the nations become big Detroits, Londons and South-Africas, violence by maras and gangs is bound to increase
5) Minorities are usually oppressed in the nations that are ruled by the ethnic group that will be the new majority (specially muslims and africans in the case of Europe, so whites may expect some of that)
6) It is in the best interest of a white person to vote for nationalist parties if that can stop them from becoming a minority

show if there is an issue with that reasoning from a white POV

1) That's only true if the other ethnicities are more dependent on welfare than the whites, and even then not necessarily.

2) Conceded.

3) More than what? It is a non-sequitor that whites can expect more taxation under non-white majority rule. Elaborate.

4) Please show what this has to do with other ethnicities. I can barely understand what you are saying.

5) Not always. This depends on the new ethnic group. Look at North America and Europe. Very little, if any oppression.

The majority of your argument consists of unsubstantiated assertions. Therefore, you cannot conclude becoming a minority is undesirable. If you want to have a battle of assertions, just say so next round and I will be more than happy to oblige you.

750 characters :D

1) www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ www.americanprogress.org/issues/ideas/2011/08/080811.html
"According to the University of Michigan's National Poverty Center, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were living in poverty in 2010, compared to 9.9 percent of whites. Unemployment statistics between the racial demographics are similarly skewed."
2) As California became more mexican, and Detroit became blacker, taxes increased quickly. Someone has to pay for that 27.4 of blacks and 26.6 of hispanics in welfare.
3) Violence by gangs have increased in London, South California, Malmo, Paris as more immigrants have imported.
5) whites are not minority in europe or america YET. The situation is bound to change

1) Employment, not welfare. Additionally, you never defended your claim other ethnicities vote for higher taxes, or that these votes have any sort of appreciable impact.

2) Why were the taxes increased by a clearly white majority? You haven't shown why this would be the fault of the other ethnic groups.

3) Yet you have not shown why it is the fault of the immigrants.

4) Implying (for some reason) that white people don't oppress, but that every other minority oppresses. That doesn't strike me as particularly sound reasoning.

Arguments:

a) Nationalist parties are civilly backwards
BNP advocates repeal of anti-discrimination legislation [1].
Closest thing to a nationalist party the USA has is the KKK.

1. http://goo.gl...