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

[Speaker to Animals]

It probably doesn't get better or worse either way, since I am arguing that diversity and unhappiness aren't as strongly correlated as you think they are.

People complain, all the time. Sometimes they complain about actual problems, sometimes they complain about imagined problems. I certainly don't think ethno-states are solutions to the actual problems.

Personally, I think hoping for a light at the end of the tunnel is nothing but Utopian fantasy. There is no perfect end-state, but anyone who complains too much about modern day America is suspected of lacking perspective on how good they have it by me. Black, white, brown, immigrant, natural-born citizen, rich or relatively poor alike.

Well, fact is, it's already been shown that "diversity" and unhappiness are directly related, as Putnam's research has shown. The idea that "diversity is a strength" is pure Orwellian nonsense. Strength is unity, not diversity.

As for looking for a light at the end of the tunnel being a utopian fantasy.. I am not asking for a utopia. I am asking for why we need to make our situation even worse. We had a decent society before 1965. We had problems, but nothing like this. Nothing we couldn't and weren't dealing with on our own. Even then.. what problems we had all stemmed from the diversity we were already saddled with by slavers before the Civil War. In no universe was it ever a good thing to have two races here like we did, and yet you think we need to just keep multiplying that endlessly. To what end? How does any of that make our situation better?

I am familiar with Putnam's claims. That is the thing about social science: people tend to support the findings that confirm their assumptions. To my knowledge, his research hasn't been very strongly collaborated. Again, there are loads of culprits for eroding trust and increasing dissatisfaction.

Having said that, I completely agree that treating 'diversity' as some sort balm that solves problems is a fantasy. As much of a fantasy as believing it is the source of all our woes.

Blaming 'diversity' for the problems associated with slavery is fucking loony bruh.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. Putnam set out to prove that diversity is our strength. He started where you are now, studied it, examined the data, and realized he was totally wrong. He never set out to prove that diversity is a curse. That's just what the evidence shows.

Which shouldn't be a surprise to anybody modestly familiar with history, but whatever.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Somebody somewhere asked how we could turn this around and make it a predominantly white nation again.. That's not really a difficult thing to accomplish really:

(1) Send all visa holders home.
(2) Round up and deport all illegal immigrants and imprison anybody who knowingly hires them for employment.
(3) Build a wall on our southern border to keep them out (while planning for a northern wall when Canada finally rolls over and becomes a third world nation).
(4) Halt all immigration aside from exceptional cases (i.e. great scientists, etc).
(5) End welfare, especially for single mothers. No more food cards. No more rent subsidies. No more nothing. If you can work, then get a job. If you still can't feed your children, then we can feed them directly at school, but you still have to work (no money goes into nonwhite and single mother's hands just for reproducing).
(6) Eliminate all tax disincentives for having children, and increase incentives to have more children. The more you earn, the more incentive you get (that part is important).
(7) Eliminate all incentives to destroy families. No more child support. No more alimony. No more nothing. If you want a divorce, fine. Kids are split between parents 50/50 and you are on your own from then on out.


\That's a simple 7 step plan that would put the brakes on this trend right away.

That would certainly put the brakes on things, you're right about that. Reading through this list, you've instantly decided to crash the economy, starve most of the third-world, malnourish 2/3 of American children, drop millions of single-parent families onto the street, and propagate an aristocracy.

My hat is off to you, sir.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Well, fact is, it's already been shown that "diversity" and unhappiness are directly related, as Putnam's research has shown. The idea that "diversity is a strength" is pure Orwellian nonsense. Strength is unity, not diversity.

As for looking for a light at the end of the tunnel being a utopian fantasy.. I am not asking for a utopia. I am asking for why we need to make our situation even worse. We had a decent society before 1965. We had problems, but nothing like this. Nothing we couldn't and weren't dealing with on our own. Even then.. what problems we had all stemmed from the diversity we were already saddled with by slavers before the Civil War. In no universe was it ever a good thing to have two races here like we did, and yet you think we need to just keep multiplying that endlessly. To what end? How does any of that make our situation better?

I am familiar with Putnam's claims. That is the thing about social science: people tend to support the findings that confirm their assumptions. To my knowledge, his research hasn't been very strongly collaborated. Again, there are loads of culprits for eroding trust and increasing dissatisfaction.

Having said that, I completely agree that treating 'diversity' as some sort balm that solves problems is a fantasy. As much of a fantasy as believing it is the source of all our woes.

Blaming 'diversity' for the problems associated with slavery is fucking loony bruh.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. Putnam set out to prove that diversity is our strength. He started where you are now, studied it, examined the data, and realized he was totally wrong. He never set out to prove that diversity is a curse. That's just what the evidence shows.

Which shouldn't be a surprise to anybody modestly familiar with history, but whatever.

That is your huge leap from showing that diversity isn't a magical solution, not 'what the evidence shows.'

Again, your claim that history shows diversity causes conflict is a tautology. Obviously there wouldn't be conflict if nobody had any differences.

Bring on the Utopian hive-mind, so we can all finally be happy and conflict free.

[SuburbanFarmer]

[Speaker to Animals]

Somebody somewhere asked how we could turn this around and make it a predominantly white nation again.. That's not really a difficult thing to accomplish really:

(1) Send all visa holders home.
(2) Round up and deport all illegal immigrants and imprison anybody who knowingly hires them for employment.
(3) Build a wall on our southern border to keep them out (while planning for a northern wall when Canada finally rolls over and becomes a third world nation).
(4) Halt all immigration aside from exceptional cases (i.e. great scientists, etc).
(5) End welfare, especially for single mothers. No more food cards. No more rent subsidies. No more nothing. If you can work, then get a job. If you still can't feed your children, then we can feed them directly at school, but you still have to work (no money goes into nonwhite and single mother's hands just for reproducing).
(6) Eliminate all tax disincentives for having children, and increase incentives to have more children. The more you earn, the more incentive you get (that part is important).
(7) Eliminate all incentives to destroy families. No more child support. No more alimony. No more nothing. If you want a divorce, fine. Kids are split between parents 50/50 and you are on your own from then on out.


\That's a simple 7 step plan that would put the brakes on this trend right away.

That would certainly put the brakes on things, you're right about that. Reading through this list, you've instantly decided to crash the economy, starve most of the third-world, malnourish 2/3 of American children, drop millions of single-parent families onto the street, and propagate an aristocracy.

My hat is off to you, sir.

Let's break up this childlike ranting into the individual claims made..

(A) Starve most of the third world.

How and why should I care? We already send them millions of piles of subsidies food every year. We are the people responsible for them not starving to death as it is. How are we responsible for even more? What does that have to do with anything in the list I posted?

(B) Malnourish 2/3 of American children..

How would that even occur? If children are hungry, then I would support feeding them. What you really are saying is that they will "starve" if we feed them rather than put cash money in some baby momma's hands, which is absurd. Many children starve precisely because we just hand out EBT cards that these women use to generate cash for themselves. I suggest we simply feed the kids and let baby momma fend for her damned self. She can work. Being a broke bitch doesn't preclude you from working, right?

(C) Drop millions of single-parent families on to the street.

By making these women get a fucking job? We face this situation because we keep incentivizing single motherhood in the first place. If we cut them off decades ago, the suffering would be less. As it is, if a woman cannot support her kids, then I guess we need to do it. In cases where the state stole the children from fathers, maybe we ought to send kids to live with their dads where those dads have a job and can support them.

The idea that a single mother can't possibly put a roof over her head without us throwing money at her is laughable. Truly, it is. If she can't afford food or medicine for her kids, then we should provide those things directly to those kids. At no point should a single mother see a single dime simply by virtue of reproducing.

The people who should be rewarded for having kids are the ones who can afford them, who generally are married couples living in stable homes. We can incentivize this through tax deductions.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am familiar with Putnam's claims. That is the thing about social science: people tend to support the findings that confirm their assumptions. To my knowledge, his research hasn't been very strongly collaborated. Again, there are loads of culprits for eroding trust and increasing dissatisfaction.

Having said that, I completely agree that treating 'diversity' as some sort balm that solves problems is a fantasy. As much of a fantasy as believing it is the source of all our woes.

Blaming 'diversity' for the problems associated with slavery is fucking loony bruh.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. Putnam set out to prove that diversity is our strength. He started where you are now, studied it, examined the data, and realized he was totally wrong. He never set out to prove that diversity is a curse. That's just what the evidence shows.

Which shouldn't be a surprise to anybody modestly familiar with history, but whatever.

That is your huge leap from showing that diversity isn't a magical solution, not 'what the evidence shows.'

Again, your claim that history shows diversity causes conflict is a tautology. Obviously there wouldn't be conflict if nobody had any differences.

Bring on the Utopian hive-mind, so we can all finally be happy and conflict free.

YES! It is a tautology. So why fuck with it!?

Diversity plus proximity equals war.

People are strong when they are unified. That's always been the case. You weaken our society with these immigration policies. It makes no sense to continue this farce.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Well, that's the problem, isn't it. Putnam set out to prove that diversity is our strength. He started where you are now, studied it, examined the data, and realized he was totally wrong. He never set out to prove that diversity is a curse. That's just what the evidence shows.

Which shouldn't be a surprise to anybody modestly familiar with history, but whatever.

That is your huge leap from showing that diversity isn't a magical solution, not 'what the evidence shows.'

Again, your claim that history shows diversity causes conflict is a tautology. Obviously there wouldn't be conflict if nobody had any differences.

Bring on the Utopian hive-mind, so we can all finally be happy and conflict free.

YES! It is a tautology. So why fuck with it!?

Diversity plus proximity equals war.

People are strong when they are unified. That's always been the case. You weaken our society with these immigration policies. It makes no sense to continue this farce.

I'm fucking with it because it doesn't solve anything. If you think that free minds and free association are a feature of the human condition and not a bug, then you are going to have to suffer some misery, conflict, and dysfunction.
Ethno-state propositions don't solve anything. Making a strong and unified ethno-state has been tried, and they just wind up having bloody conflicts with whoever happens to fall outside those borders. If you want to reduce conflict and human misery, encourage mutually beneficial collaboration, trade, and free association. Battening the hatches, pulling up the draw bridge, and fortifying the tribe's defenses is, at best, a very short term solution and an expensive opportunity cost that will, inevitably, result in more conflict. That is what history really shows.

[Speaker to Animals]

That is your huge leap from showing that diversity isn't a magical solution, not 'what the evidence shows.'

Again, your claim that history shows diversity causes conflict is a tautology. Obviously there wouldn't be conflict if nobody had any differences.

Bring on the Utopian hive-mind, so we can all finally be happy and conflict free.

YES! It is a tautology. So why fuck with it!?

Diversity plus proximity equals war.

People are strong when they are unified. That's always been the case. You weaken our society with these immigration policies. It makes no sense to continue this farce.

I'm fucking with it because it doesn't solve anything. If you think that free minds and free association are a feature of the human condition and not a bug, then you are going to have to suffer some misery, conflict, and dysfunction.
Ethno-state propositions don't solve anything. Making a strong and unified ethno-state has been tried, and they just wind up having bloody conflicts with whoever happens to fall outside those borders. If you want to reduce conflict and human misery, encourage mutually beneficial collaboration, trade, and free association. Battening the hatches, pulling up the draw bridge, and fortifying the tribe's defenses is, at best, a very short term solution and an expensive opportunity cost that will, inevitably, result in more conflict. That is what history really shows.

You are the one arguing against free association here. I am not sure what your point is. To argue against ethno-nationalism is, by default, an argument against free association. Surely, people should have the right to live in a racially homogeneous society if they want?

To claim you are against the very idea of a white ethno-state anywhere is, by default, a position against the freedom of association for whites (or at least a severe abridgment thereof).

So much Orwellian language coming from you guys..

Just stop and think about how absurd your position really is. Do you oppose the Japanese people having their own ethno-state (Japan)? Probably not. But as soon as we are talking about whites, ethno-states become some kind of boogieman for you. Has it not occurred to you that many whites still want their ethno-states? Who do you think you are deciding they don't get to have one?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You are the one arguing against free association here. I am not sure what your point is. To argue against ethno-nationalism is, by default, an argument against free association. Surely, people should have the right to live in a racially homogeneous society if they want?

To claim you are against the very idea of a white ethno-state anywhere is, by default, a position against the freedom of association for whites (or at least a severe abridgment thereof).

So much Orwellian language coming from you guys..

Just stop and think about how absurd your position really is. Do you oppose the Japanese people having their own ethno-state (Japan)? Probably not. But as soon as we are talking about whites, ethno-states become some kind of boogieman for you. Has it not occurred to you that many whites still want their ethno-states? Who do you think you are deciding they don't get to have one?

You clearly don't understand my point because I am not arguing against the 'very idea of a white ethno-state anywhere.' I am arguing that ethno-states, in general, are impractical, restrictive, and don't solve any actual problems. Some abstract, pie-in-the-sky idea about an ill-defined area where similar people live does not an ethno-state make.

To make it a state, it would require laws. To make it an ethno-state would require laws that restrict association by definition. Furthermore, the principles of an ethno-state practically ensure it will be in conflict with her neighbors. The only way around this is having some larger system that maintains peace between these proposed states, which pretty much eliminates the ethno part of the ethno-state don't it. Looks a lot like what we currently have, in fact. You are free to live in a whiter part of America if you think that is an important component to a quality life.

Japan is a great example of an ethno state (suspect as that definition is) not working, since they are currently doing everything they can to bring people into their economy to support their ageing population. This includes promoting immigration.

[BjornP]

Is "Ethno State" supposed to mean something different than "nation state"? If so, what?