Poll: Who Supports the Idea of a White Ethno State?

[Montegriffo]

The ethos of America was largely "built" by the Scots, Scottish Enlightenment > Glorious Revolution > American Revolution.

It actually all starts in Scotland, with the Education Act of 1496.

Adam Smith.

Hmmm . . . now we're sniffing around the roots. #winning

Roots?

[Smitty-48]

Bear in mind, the Enlightenment spreads to England from Scotland, the North Germans may have been better at war, but the Scots were better at school, and in the end, school beat the British Grenadiers, by way of America. What was lost on Culloden Moor, was taken back at Yorktown.

[Penner]

Bear in mind, the Enlightenment spreads to England from Scotland, the North German's may have been better at war, but the Scots were better at school, and in the end, school beat the British Grenadiers, by way of America.

FRANCE.

[Smitty-48]

Bear in mind, the Enlightenment spreads to England from Scotland, the North German's may have been better at war, but the Scots were better at school, and in the end, school beat the British Grenadiers, by way of America.

FRANCE.

The only reason the Americans were in a position to deal with the French as peers, is the Scottish Enlightenment amongst them, the French Navy could have been defeated in the end, and was in fact, at Trafalgar, but what the British knew in the wake of Yorktown; you can't kill an idea, and if you can't beat them, join them, which is what they did, Treaty of Paris 1783.

The truth is, America was never at war with a tyrant, America was at war with a Parliament, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, was simply enlightened enough to know when to cut its losses, and when to say it's not personal, just business, so swallow your pride and give business its due, to wit, Adam Smith was at work, on both sides of the lines.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The American Civil War was literally a diversity problem. Not just a problem of the slavery that the southern slave lords perpetuated, but a problem of the distinct cultures that inhabited this land (cultural diversity). But also the Indian Wars were diversity problems. The problem of integrating just European immigrants, who were most like the rest of us, was a diversity problem. The rise of the mafia was a diversity problem.

Differences create conflict. The bigger the differences, the more potential for greater conflict. This isn't difficult to understand. We all know this to be true at every level. What makes Thanksgiving dinner suck so much? Differences of opinion. That is, diversity of opinion. Or sometimes it's just flat out diversity problems when mom doesn't like that cute Peurto Rican chick you are dating. Or because uncle Rodney decided he is a fucking Vegan and everything on the table is murder, and he is going to remind everybody with ever last Goddamned bite.

Bringing in radically different people is usually a really bad idea. Sometimes.. it kind of works out. Once they got past that whole "you ate my friends after sacrificing them to your demon god" and "you sunk half our city into the lake" problems, the Spanish and Mexica were perfect for one another. But still, conflict was just under the surface, and eventually the Mexica kicked the Spanish out a few centuries later. The Mayans are the craziest. Did you know there was still a militant Mayan state up into the 1800s? Those guys do not like Mexica one bit.

Creating differences just for the sake of differences is not a rational approach to maintaining your nation state. You have to consider what conflicts will arise and how to mitigate them. You have to decide if you really need that conflict in the first place.

Since I have already accepted that you can define any conflict as a diversity problem, and you have accepted it is tautological, all these examples merely serve as proof that, despite her long history of diversity problems (perhaps the most diversity problems per generation), America managed to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

This, of course, is not an argument in favor of diversity, simply evidence that it isn't civilization ending, as is sometimes proposed. As such, it is important to clear up a misunderstanding in the positive case for diversity.

The argument promulgated by the stupider left, and embraced by (I don't want to tar the whole right with this, but it is a useful shorthand) right as a convenient straw-man, is that you gain the contribution of 'vibrant people' or some vague sense of surface equality. Your 'created differences for differences sake.' This is not, however, the important thing gained by valuing diversity in the abstract.

What everyone gains is the ability to hold a minority viewpoint, unpopular or even morally repugnant idea, or occupy a disrespected position without fear of state censure, prosecution, or complete suppression. As board members who often hold the ground on very unpopular opinions, you and Nuke ought to be a bit more receptive to this benefit.

If this isn't the shared value, under what rubric do we condemn the SJWs who would actually seek to prohibit both of you (and, frankly, most the rest of us) from expressing our opinions?

With that in mind, it is important to ask if what we lose by rejecting that value is really worth it. Consider the white Utopias much beloved of Sanders-socialists and Altists trying to prove that only white people get to have nice societies. (Plus, we have the benefit of a few members of those societies on hand to vet my analysis of the situation.)

Northern European nations are largely white. Do they have the right to define their states however they like? Absolutely. Should they define them as 'white,' rather than according to their particular heritage, history, and associated cultural artifacts? I don't see why, but go for it. Should they be able to set their policies towards immigrants or refugees however they like? Of course.

This does mean that Anglo-Saxon/Celtic, but basically average Hanarchy gets preferential treatment, immigration-wise, over some exceptional Mohamed who has multiple advanced degrees and expertise in fields that could help add to their economy. Even if Mohamed has a harder time assimilating, on balance it is better than Hanarchy itching for those tasty Social Democratic gibs. All for an ill-defined and slippery concept. Now, you would have to ask someone with a better handle on their history, but I am pretty sure for as long as they have all been white as the pure driven snow, they have had conflicts, so, again, you solve almost nothing at a great opportunity cost, both in human capital and individual sovereignty.

So, sure, I can support the 'idea' of a white ethno-state while still thinking it is a stupid, pointless and ill-defined program that doesn't solve any problems. But I was raised to accept a diversity of opinion in a civilized way, so I can certainly tolerate the existence of this foolish one.

TL;DR:
1. Conflict though it may cause, diversity is hardly civilization ending.
2. You gain support for unpopular opinions, which maximizes individual sovereignty and helps test good ideas against bad ones, when you value diversity.
3. You don't lose real and practical contributions for the collective good based on rather slippery concepts when you value diversity.

[Montegriffo]

Since I have already accepted that you can define any conflict as a diversity problem, and you have accepted it is tautological, all these examples merely serve as proof that, despite her long history of diversity problems (perhaps the most diversity problems per generation), America managed to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

This, of course, is not an argument in favor of diversity, simply evidence that it isn't civilization ending, as is sometimes proposed. As such, it is important to clear up a misunderstanding in the positive case for diversity.

The argument promulgated by the stupider left, and embraced by (I don't want to tar the whole right with this, but it is a useful shorthand) right as a convenient straw-man, is that you gain the contribution of 'vibrant people' or some vague sense of surface equality. Your 'created differences for differences sake.' This is not, however, the important thing gained by valuing diversity in the abstract.

What everyone gains is the ability to hold a minority viewpoint, unpopular or even morally repugnant idea, or occupy a disrespected position without fear of state censure, prosecution, or complete suppression. As board members who often hold the ground on very unpopular opinions, you and Nuke ought to be a bit more receptive to this benefit.

If this isn't the shared value, under what rubric do we condemn the SJWs who would actually seek to prohibit both of you (and, frankly, most the rest of us) from expressing our opinions?

With that in mind, it is important to ask if what we lose by rejecting that value is really worth it. Consider the white Utopias much beloved of Sanders-socialists and Altists trying to prove that only white people get to have nice societies. (Plus, we have the benefit of a few members of those societies on hand to vet my analysis of the situation.)

Northern European nations are largely white. Do they have the right to define their states however they like? Absolutely. Should they define them as 'white,' rather than according to their particular heritage, history, and associated cultural artifacts? I don't see why, but go for it. Should they be able to set their policies towards immigrants or refugees however they like? Of course.

This does mean that Anglo-Saxon/Celtic, but basically average Hanarchy gets preferential treatment, immigration-wise, over some exceptional Mohamed who has multiple advanced degrees and expertise in fields that could help add to their economy. Even if Mohamed has a harder time assimilating, on balance it is better than Hanarchy itching for those tasty Social Democratic gibs. All for an ill-defined and slippery concept. Now, you would have to ask someone with a better handle on their history, but I am pretty sure for as long as they have all been white as the pure driven snow, they have had conflicts, so, again, you solve almost nothing at a great opportunity cost, both in human capital and individual sovereignty.

So, sure, I can support the 'idea' of a white ethno-state while still thinking it is a stupid, pointless and ill-defined program that doesn't solve any problems. But I was raised to accept a diversity of opinion in a civilized way, so I can certainly tolerate the existence of this foolish one.

TL;DR:
1. Conflict though it may cause, diversity is hardly civilization ending.
2. You gain support for unpopular opinions, which maximizes individual sovereignty and helps test good ideas against bad ones, when you value diversity.
3. You don't lose real and practical contributions for the collective good based on rather slippery concepts when you value diversity.

Post of the month

[K@th]

Post of the month

+1

This is a fun thread.

[heydaralon]

The American Civil War was literally a diversity problem. Not just a problem of the slavery that the southern slave lords perpetuated, but a problem of the distinct cultures that inhabited this land (cultural diversity). But also the Indian Wars were diversity problems. The problem of integrating just European immigrants, who were most like the rest of us, was a diversity problem. The rise of the mafia was a diversity problem.

Differences create conflict. The bigger the differences, the more potential for greater conflict. This isn't difficult to understand. We all know this to be true at every level. What makes Thanksgiving dinner suck so much? Differences of opinion. That is, diversity of opinion. Or sometimes it's just flat out diversity problems when mom doesn't like that cute Peurto Rican chick you are dating. Or because uncle Rodney decided he is a fucking Vegan and everything on the table is murder, and he is going to remind everybody with ever last Goddamned bite.

Bringing in radically different people is usually a really bad idea. Sometimes.. it kind of works out. Once they got past that whole "you ate my friends after sacrificing them to your demon god" and "you sunk half our city into the lake" problems, the Spanish and Mexica were perfect for one another. But still, conflict was just under the surface, and eventually the Mexica kicked the Spanish out a few centuries later. The Mayans are the craziest. Did you know there was still a militant Mayan state up into the 1800s? Those guys do not like Mexica one bit.

Creating differences just for the sake of differences is not a rational approach to maintaining your nation state. You have to consider what conflicts will arise and how to mitigate them. You have to decide if you really need that conflict in the first place.

Since I have already accepted that you can define any conflict as a diversity problem, and you have accepted it is tautological, all these examples merely serve as proof that, despite her long history of diversity problems (perhaps the most diversity problems per generation), America managed to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

This, of course, is not an argument in favor of diversity, simply evidence that it isn't civilization ending, as is sometimes proposed. As such, it is important to clear up a misunderstanding in the positive case for diversity.

The argument promulgated by the stupider left, and embraced by (I don't want to tar the whole right with this, but it is a useful shorthand) right as a convenient straw-man, is that you gain the contribution of 'vibrant people' or some vague sense of surface equality. Your 'created differences for differences sake.' This is not, however, the important thing gained by valuing diversity in the abstract.

What everyone gains is the ability to hold a minority viewpoint, unpopular or even morally repugnant idea, or occupy a disrespected position without fear of state censure, prosecution, or complete suppression. As board members who often hold the ground on very unpopular opinions, you and Nuke ought to be a bit more receptive to this benefit.

If this isn't the shared value, under what rubric do we condemn the SJWs who would actually seek to prohibit both of you (and, frankly, most the rest of us) from expressing our opinions?

With that in mind, it is important to ask if what we lose by rejecting that value is really worth it. Consider the white Utopias much beloved of Sanders-socialists and Altists trying to prove that only white people get to have nice societies. (Plus, we have the benefit of a few members of those societies on hand to vet my analysis of the situation.)

Northern European nations are largely white. Do they have the right to define their states however they like? Absolutely. Should they define them as 'white,' rather than according to their particular heritage, history, and associated cultural artifacts? I don't see why, but go for it. Should they be able to set their policies towards immigrants or refugees however they like? Of course.

This does mean that Anglo-Saxon/Celtic, but basically average Hanarchy gets preferential treatment, immigration-wise, over some exceptional Mohamed who has multiple advanced degrees and expertise in fields that could help add to their economy. Even if Mohamed has a harder time assimilating, on balance it is better than Hanarchy itching for those tasty Social Democratic gibs. All for an ill-defined and slippery concept. Now, you would have to ask someone with a better handle on their history, but I am pretty sure for as long as they have all been white as the pure driven snow, they have had conflicts, so, again, you solve almost nothing at a great opportunity cost, both in human capital and individual sovereignty.

So, sure, I can support the 'idea' of a white ethno-state while still thinking it is a stupid, pointless and ill-defined program that doesn't solve any problems. But I was raised to accept a diversity of opinion in a civilized way, so I can certainly tolerate the existence of this foolish one.

TL;DR:
1. Conflict though it may cause, diversity is hardly civilization ending.
2. You gain support for unpopular opinions, which maximizes individual sovereignty and helps test good ideas against bad ones, when you value diversity.
3. You don't lose real and practical contributions for the collective good based on rather slippery concepts when you value diversity.

Damn Hanarchy! I dont always agree with you but you do a great job making your case. I believe that a case for diversity (though I am fairly against diversity as the vocal people on the left practice it) is just non interference from government or society in the lives of unpopular citizens. This kind of dovetails into what you were saying about minority opinions. I dont want my life interfered with excessively, so I attempt to avoid interfering in the lives of people I disagree with.

[Speaker to Animals]

The American Civil War was literally a diversity problem. Not just a problem of the slavery that the southern slave lords perpetuated, but a problem of the distinct cultures that inhabited this land (cultural diversity). But also the Indian Wars were diversity problems. The problem of integrating just European immigrants, who were most like the rest of us, was a diversity problem. The rise of the mafia was a diversity problem.

Differences create conflict. The bigger the differences, the more potential for greater conflict. This isn't difficult to understand. We all know this to be true at every level. What makes Thanksgiving dinner suck so much? Differences of opinion. That is, diversity of opinion. Or sometimes it's just flat out diversity problems when mom doesn't like that cute Peurto Rican chick you are dating. Or because uncle Rodney decided he is a fucking Vegan and everything on the table is murder, and he is going to remind everybody with ever last Goddamned bite.

Bringing in radically different people is usually a really bad idea. Sometimes.. it kind of works out. Once they got past that whole "you ate my friends after sacrificing them to your demon god" and "you sunk half our city into the lake" problems, the Spanish and Mexica were perfect for one another. But still, conflict was just under the surface, and eventually the Mexica kicked the Spanish out a few centuries later. The Mayans are the craziest. Did you know there was still a militant Mayan state up into the 1800s? Those guys do not like Mexica one bit.

Creating differences just for the sake of differences is not a rational approach to maintaining your nation state. You have to consider what conflicts will arise and how to mitigate them. You have to decide if you really need that conflict in the first place.

Since I have already accepted that you can define any conflict as a diversity problem, and you have accepted it is tautological, all these examples merely serve as proof that, despite her long history of diversity problems (perhaps the most diversity problems per generation), America managed to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world.

This, of course, is not an argument in favor of diversity, simply evidence that it isn't civilization ending, as is sometimes proposed. As such, it is important to clear up a misunderstanding in the positive case for diversity.

The argument promulgated by the stupider left, and embraced by (I don't want to tar the whole right with this, but it is a useful shorthand) right as a convenient straw-man, is that you gain the contribution of 'vibrant people' or some vague sense of surface equality. Your 'created differences for differences sake.' This is not, however, the important thing gained by valuing diversity in the abstract.

What everyone gains is the ability to hold a minority viewpoint, unpopular or even morally repugnant idea, or occupy a disrespected position without fear of state censure, prosecution, or complete suppression. As board members who often hold the ground on very unpopular opinions, you and Nuke ought to be a bit more receptive to this benefit.

If this isn't the shared value, under what rubric do we condemn the SJWs who would actually seek to prohibit both of you (and, frankly, most the rest of us) from expressing our opinions?

With that in mind, it is important to ask if what we lose by rejecting that value is really worth it. Consider the white Utopias much beloved of Sanders-socialists and Altists trying to prove that only white people get to have nice societies. (Plus, we have the benefit of a few members of those societies on hand to vet my analysis of the situation.)

Northern European nations are largely white. Do they have the right to define their states however they like? Absolutely. Should they define them as 'white,' rather than according to their particular heritage, history, and associated cultural artifacts? I don't see why, but go for it. Should they be able to set their policies towards immigrants or refugees however they like? Of course.

This does mean that Anglo-Saxon/Celtic, but basically average Hanarchy gets preferential treatment, immigration-wise, over some exceptional Mohamed who has multiple advanced degrees and expertise in fields that could help add to their economy. Even if Mohamed has a harder time assimilating, on balance it is better than Hanarchy itching for those tasty Social Democratic gibs. All for an ill-defined and slippery concept. Now, you would have to ask someone with a better handle on their history, but I am pretty sure for as long as they have all been white as the pure driven snow, they have had conflicts, so, again, you solve almost nothing at a great opportunity cost, both in human capital and individual sovereignty.

So, sure, I can support the 'idea' of a white ethno-state while still thinking it is a stupid, pointless and ill-defined program that doesn't solve any problems. But I was raised to accept a diversity of opinion in a civilized way, so I can certainly tolerate the existence of this foolish one.

TL;DR:
1. Conflict though it may cause, diversity is hardly civilization ending.
2. You gain support for unpopular opinions, which maximizes individual sovereignty and helps test good ideas against bad ones, when you value diversity.
3. You don't lose real and practical contributions for the collective good based on rather slippery concepts when you value diversity.

That's a nice post, but nowhere did you actually counter anything I argued. Nothing you supported here is incompatable with a white ethno-state, except for the idea that we should have the right as a people to vote ourselves out of existence and dispossess one another of our homelands -- which I will get to at the end. The United States was, until 1965, a white ethno-state. We still had some level of nonwhite immigration here (Chinese were a big example, but also Mexicans). We had diversity of views and ways of doing things that forged our nation into the only one to put human beings on another world.

It's a matter of how we define these things. Using the blanket term "diverisity" is totally dishonest in most cases, because hardly anybody on the side defending a white ethno-state oppose diversity in the first place. There exists a wide chasm between low-levels of immigration of nonwhites to a white nation and the colonization we are seeing today.

Mass migration of nonwhites into white nations is not "diversity". It's actually colonization. It's the same thing we did to the First Peoples of North America.

Would you tell black South Africans they should be happy for all the diversity that the armada of white immigrants brings to Africa? Probably not. But when it's nonwhites doing it to white nations, you think it's a great idea.

Nor is that really diversity. That's colonization.

To my mind, a white ethno-state is one that can allow plenty of immigration from nonwhite regions of the world, as America operated up until 1965, but the policy has to conform to the idea that we don't actually lose control of our own destinies; that America would remain a large majority white in perpetuity.

Because what's coming next isn't going to be America. It's going to be little Mexican areas where Mexicans live, little Sharia law zones where the Muslims live, and whatever else we allow to colonize our home.


Which leads me to the idea that people should have the freedom to "vote" their race out of existence, which you insisted was perfectly okay. No, it's not. If that's what democracy means, then I will help to overthrow it. That's insanity. We should all vote on whether we become the next Jews and get dispossed of our homes like whites in South Africa are today, and have no homeland anywhere to escape to -- because it feels good to live in a society where nobody has any meaningful connection to one another? No. I reject that. I think it's silly and I suspect most people realize it even if they don't want to publicly admit so for fear of consequences from the Marxist/globalist domination of academia, business, and state.

[Speaker to Animals]

The point here is that, in small numbers, nonwhites and nonwestern people can potentially immigrate here, but they would be unable to form little insular colonies amongst us and slowly convert our homeland into versions of their homeland.

A guy moving here from Pakistan, marrying somebody from here, living in our neighborhoods, and slowly becoming like us is normal immigration.

Millions of people moving here from Pakistan, congregating in Pakistani communities where people create their sharia law zones that operate wholly separate from our own laws and customs is colonization. Those areas are to us what Jamestown was to Native American tribes in what would become Virgina.

It's disengenuous to describe what is happening to us as mere "diversity" manufacturing. It's colonization. It's the same thing whites did to South Africa. It's what our own ancestors did to North America. We didn't come here to become Mohawks and Iroquois. We came here to colonize. That's a fundamental difference that your side constantly glosses over and it's absolutely fucking critical to our future right now that everybody understand it.

I support a rational immigration policy that allows *some* nonwestern peoples in for the sake of "diversity", but I do not support in any way the mass colonization of America by nonwestern peoples. And, in our case, the primary culprits are Mexicans, whom I like quite a lot. It's not personal. I would not support Anglos trying to colonize Mexico either. That would be fucked up. Why can't those days be put behind us?