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

[TheReal_ND]

That gets the argument backwards. You don't 'gain freedom under a regime of diversity.' Instead, diversity is the inevitable result of a regime of freedom.

Bahahaha. No offense. Your post was intelligent and I like you but that argument is retarded and you know it. Diversity was a product of cheap labor rent seeking and it has been for nearly two centuries in this nation. Fucking weird how you socialists suddenly start aligning with your "capitalist overlords," on this issue.

We agree that there is a conflict between the needs of laborers and unrestricted movement across borders/prioritizing market freedom. But the argument isn't retarded, it is true, and you don't like the consequences. Sometimes two valid goals, like maximum liberty and protecting workers, are in conflict.

We can have a discussion about how to maximize individual liberty and prioritize the needs of workers, but if you want to argue that an ethno-state is the path to that end, you are going to have to get very specific about the contours of said state. And, if it truly does maximize individual liberty in a meaningful way, it probably won't look much like anything I would describe as an ethno-state.

The problem here is that nobody seems to really want to have a conversation about ethno-states, because they are not a very good idea. They want to have a conversation about restricting immigration, which can be a good idea, or a neutral idea, or, in some cases, a bad idea. Why you are tying the reasonable discussion about immigration policy and what (if any) role economic protectionism for American workers should play in that policy to the absurd fantasy of an ethnic utopia is beyond me.

Because nobody takes immigration seriously. If people want to discuss the downsides of being diverse and some of the things we can do to correct the problems then that's fine. But I've tried that. You end up with people like Capps telling you how great such and such foreigners are ad naseum to the point where Sweden is going out of their way to get grenade attacked. Frankly there is no compromise here due to the conditioning we have all grown up with. If you want some specifics on a white ethno-state well they just aren't coming right now. You've already seen multiple people like PennPenn try to define what is white in an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into White Identity Politics. What I wanted to see here, long after all white countries have taken the diversity pill, is how many people want to say, "fuck this." What I'm asking is if you would support the subjects of this cultural enrichment experiment in an effort to break away from multi-cult. Maximum liberty in the pursuit of vibrancy? Jesus Christ dude, I just lost some respect for you.

[StCapps]

If you don't want to talk about ethno states, in the White Ethno State thread, that's kind of odd. There are plenty of other threads where ethno states aren't being discussed.
/shrugs

[TheReal_ND]

No we aren't doing the what is white game here. That's an old tactic. Old old old. I think if you are being passed over for promotions in order to get diversity hires in you know exactly what is white. Tired!

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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.

We are, in a sense, arguing past each other because we are both avoiding the harder, more specific components of our own positions.

I don't have an exact number for the 'right' amount of immigration, and you have a vague enough definition of an ehtno-state that it can be just about anything to anyone. I also think that definitions of race are too slippery to be particularly useful, so mostly ignore statements like 'vote their race out of existence' because I don't really have a firm grasp on what that means.

The idea that Muslims, Mexicans, white or Christian Americans might congregate into neighborhoods where they exercise control of local laws doesn't bother me at all as long as all those laws acknowledge the primacy of the constitution and conform to its dictates. That is the essence of American government and I am, more or less, happy with it. I would like to see more regional control over laws as a general rule.

But America never was, and never will be, a white 'homeland.' It can be a homeland for anyone who appreciates a state built on enlightenment values though, and I don't see why that should undermine our ability to meaningfully connect with each other.

This might come as a shock, given my tendency towards lefty liberalism, but I don't have any major issues with colonialism. It has been mostly a boon to any place it happened. I prefer Kipling's India to Gandhi's... or rather, I don't think they are inherently mutually exclusive. But then, I am sort of a problematic liberal... meaning an actual liberal and not an idiot.

[StCapps]

No we aren't doing the what is white game here. That's an old tactic. Old old old. I think if you are being passed over for promotions in order to get diversity hires in you know exactly what is white. Tired!

A distaste for affirmative action does not a White Ethno State make. You don't need a White Ethno State to put a stop to affirmative action, that might be a pretty big reason why that's the case.

[TheReal_ND]

But America never was, and never will be, a white 'homeland.'

Being this ignorant. "Nordic Supremacy" was basically the "White Supremacy" of the day shortly after we opened the borders to "Germanics." I neglected to point that out.



This kind of shit is just going to burn me out eventually.

[BjornP]

Wouldnt you have a better shot with Scandinavia? Dont those countries have a lower amount of nonwhites than Germany or the US?

If we are talking long term viability, The German Ethno State would be the most populous of the White Ethno States, and therefore the most viable to withstand demographic pressure from non-white immigrants to North America or Europe. The second most viable White Ethno State would be the French Ethno State. We have a mini version of that in Canada already, We call it Quebec, Vive Le Quebec Libre, her majesty defends the right.

I was going to bring those guys up. Shit politics but they are pretty racially aware.

Nope. We are ethnically aware, and our ethnicities are Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish. Not "white". That's a cultural way of identification that belongs in America, not where I live. Culture is everything here. Adopt our culture and you're accepted as one of us, part of the tribe. Don't and no one gives a shit about your skin color because you'd be just as much a pariah as third world Muslims living in perpetual welfare, in between trying to rape Danish girls and boys.

On a continent where everyone is white skinned, feeling some sort of unique, shared identity because of that, makes absolutely zero sense. It's as stupid as a Congolese feeling solidarity with a Kenyan for both being "black".

So... I like you, nuke, but you'd never belong or fit in in any Scandinavian country, without some re-adjustments, anyway.

Anyway. Aren't there are any white nationalist billionaries in the world who'd be up to buying a small series of islands where you and likeminded people could create your white ethno-state.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Bahahaha. No offense. Your post was intelligent and I like you but that argument is retarded and you know it. Diversity was a product of cheap labor rent seeking and it has been for nearly two centuries in this nation. Fucking weird how you socialists suddenly start aligning with your "capitalist overlords," on this issue.

We agree that there is a conflict between the needs of laborers and unrestricted movement across borders/prioritizing market freedom. But the argument isn't retarded, it is true, and you don't like the consequences. Sometimes two valid goals, like maximum liberty and protecting workers, are in conflict.

We can have a discussion about how to maximize individual liberty and prioritize the needs of workers, but if you want to argue that an ethno-state is the path to that end, you are going to have to get very specific about the contours of said state. And, if it truly does maximize individual liberty in a meaningful way, it probably won't look much like anything I would describe as an ethno-state.

The problem here is that nobody seems to really want to have a conversation about ethno-states, because they are not a very good idea. They want to have a conversation about restricting immigration, which can be a good idea, or a neutral idea, or, in some cases, a bad idea. Why you are tying the reasonable discussion about immigration policy and what (if any) role economic protectionism for American workers should play in that policy to the absurd fantasy of an ethnic utopia is beyond me.

Because nobody takes immigration seriously. If people want to discuss the downsides of being diverse and some of the things we can do to correct the problems then that's fine. But I've tried that. You end up with people like Capps telling you how great such and such foreigners are ad naseum to the point where Sweden is going out of their way to get grenade attacked. Frankly there is no compromise here due to the conditioning we have all grown up with. If you want some specifics on a white ethno-state well they just aren't coming right now. You've already seen multiple people like PennPenn try to define what is white in an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into White Identity Politics. What I wanted to see here, long after all white countries have taken the diversity pill, is how many people want to say, "fuck this." What I'm asking is if you would support the subjects of this cultural enrichment experiment in an effort to break away from multi-cult. Maximum liberty in the pursuit of vibrancy? Jesus Christ dude, I just lost some respect for you.

I specifically argued against the 'pursuit of vibrancy.' In fact, I have said multiple times that 'vibrancy' is merely the consequence of liberty, and inevitable as long as we have sovereign minds. Whether or not one views that vibrancy as an added benefit or not is really a matter of taste as far as I am concerned.

Penner's attempt to derail white-identity is fine by me, because I agree that identity politics are fallacious on their own grounds. White, black, queer, or otherwise.

We agree that multi-cult as a goal ranges from meaningless to destructive. We agree that totally open borders are a terrible idea. And we seem to agree that maximizing individual autonomy is a valid goal.

What I disagree with is the wisdom of basing laws on ethnicity, or the idea that non-whites are incompatible with a non-atomized community that I can participate in.

If a group of whites have decided America is just too vibrant for them, I support them leaving for whiter pastures. I don't support carving up America to make a special place for them where they are free from constitutional law for purely practical reasons. Building a government from scratch is expensive, and I doubt the white separatists are going to foot the bill themselves, and I sure as shit don't want to pay for their tantrum when America currently has plenty of more useful projects it could be investing in.

[TheReal_ND]

If we are talking long term viability, The German Ethno State would be the most populous of the White Ethno States, and therefore the most viable to withstand demographic pressure from non-white immigrants to North America or Europe. The second most viable White Ethno State would be the French Ethno State. We have a mini version of that in Canada already, We call it Quebec, Vive Le Quebec Libre, her majesty defends the right.

I was going to bring those guys up. Shit politics but they are pretty racially aware.

Nope. We are ethnically aware, and our ethnicities are Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish. Not "white". That's a cultural way of identification that belongs in America, not where I live. Culture is everything here. Adopt our culture and you're accepted as one of us, part of the tribe. Don't and no one gives a shit about your skin color because you'd be just as much a pariah as third world Muslims living in perpetual welfare, in between trying to rape Danish girls and boys.

On a continent where everyone is white skinned, feeling some sort of unique, shared identity because of that, makes absolutely zero sense. It's as stupid as a Congolese feeling solidarity with a Kenyan for both being "black".

So... I like you, nuke, but you'd never belong or fit in in any Scandinavian country, without some re-adjustments, anyway.

Anyway. Aren't there are any white nationalist billionaries in the world who'd be up to buying a small series of islands where you and likeminded people could create your white ethno-state.

I wasn't talking about you Aquafresh. You're an irrevelant country. I was talking about Quebec. I like you too though. Please stay over there.

We agree that there is a conflict between the needs of laborers and unrestricted movement across borders/prioritizing market freedom. But the argument isn't retarded, it is true, and you don't like the consequences. Sometimes two valid goals, like maximum liberty and protecting workers, are in conflict.

We can have a discussion about how to maximize individual liberty and prioritize the needs of workers, but if you want to argue that an ethno-state is the path to that end, you are going to have to get very specific about the contours of said state. And, if it truly does maximize individual liberty in a meaningful way, it probably won't look much like anything I would describe as an ethno-state.

The problem here is that nobody seems to really want to have a conversation about ethno-states, because they are not a very good idea. They want to have a conversation about restricting immigration, which can be a good idea, or a neutral idea, or, in some cases, a bad idea. Why you are tying the reasonable discussion about immigration policy and what (if any) role economic protectionism for American workers should play in that policy to the absurd fantasy of an ethnic utopia is beyond me.

Because nobody takes immigration seriously. If people want to discuss the downsides of being diverse and some of the things we can do to correct the problems then that's fine. But I've tried that. You end up with people like Capps telling you how great such and such foreigners are ad naseum to the point where Sweden is going out of their way to get grenade attacked. Frankly there is no compromise here due to the conditioning we have all grown up with. If you want some specifics on a white ethno-state well they just aren't coming right now. You've already seen multiple people like PennPenn try to define what is white in an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into White Identity Politics. What I wanted to see here, long after all white countries have taken the diversity pill, is how many people want to say, "fuck this." What I'm asking is if you would support the subjects of this cultural enrichment experiment in an effort to break away from multi-cult. Maximum liberty in the pursuit of vibrancy? Jesus Christ dude, I just lost some respect for you.

I specifically argued against the 'pursuit of vibrancy.' In fact, I have said multiple times that 'vibrancy' is merely the consequence of liberty, and inevitable as long as we have sovereign minds. Whether or not one views that vibrancy as an added benefit or not is really a matter of taste as far as I am concerned.

Penner's attempt to derail white-identity is fine by me, because I agree that identity politics are fallacious on their own grounds. White, black, queer, or otherwise.

We agree that multi-cult as a goal ranges from meaningless to destructive. We agree that totally open borders are a terrible idea. And we seem to agree that maximizing individual autonomy is a valid goal.

What I disagree with is the wisdom of basing laws on ethnicity, or the idea that non-whites are incompatible with a non-atomized community that I can participate in.

If a group of whites have decided America is just too vibrant for them, I support them leaving for whiter pastures. I don't support carving up America to make a special place for them where they are free from constitutional law for purely practical reasons. Building a government from scratch is expensive, and I doubt the white separatists are going to foot the bill themselves, and I sure as shit don't want to pay for their tantrum when America currently has plenty of more useful projects it could be investing in.

Fine.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

But America never was, and never will be, a white 'homeland.'

Being this ignorant. "Nordic Supremacy" was basically the "White Supremacy" of the day shortly after we opened the borders to "Germanics." I neglected to point that out.

This kind of shit is just going to burn me out eventually.

I didn't say there weren't always white supremacists. I am just saying America isn't their 'homeland.' It started as a colony, which is sort of by definition not a homeland, and became a nation defined by constitutional law, which is, again, by definition, not a 'blood and soil' version of a state.