# Can there actually be an ethnostate?



## Al Gulud (Nov 8, 2018)

I've always thought this was a joke but sometimes I see idiots who are legit serious about this.  This thread isn't asking for your reasons for wanting but your plan for how it can happen.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 8, 2018)

Stop globalization. Stop trying to keep the country together. People naturally segregate if you let them, just dont do anything about it and then the two ethnicities will naturally split up into two states.


----------



## Lysenko (Nov 8, 2018)

There is, it's called Vermont.


----------



## Thomas Paine (Nov 8, 2018)

There is one, Israel.


----------



## Audit (Nov 8, 2018)

Why an ethnostate and not one set up by political interests? Give it enough time and the liberals can rule the east and west coasts while forcing the conservatives into the rust belt.


----------



## Draza (Nov 8, 2018)

Yes, look at here in the Balkans, especially Croatia.


----------



## IV 445 (Nov 8, 2018)

You guys are talking about unintentional ethnostates. An isolated island of homogenous people is not really an ethnostate. It has to be enumerated somewhere in sovereign law that “only X people can purchase land, wed people, work here or live here.” That’s a true ethnostate.


----------



## Audit (Nov 9, 2018)

Hortator said:


> You guys are talking about unintentional ethnostates. An isolated island of homogenous people is not really an ethnostate. It has to be enumerated somewhere in sovereign law that “only X people can purchase land, wed people, work here or live here.” That’s a true ethnostate.


So pretty much Japan.


----------



## Snuckening (Nov 9, 2018)

Hortator said:


> You guys are talking about unintentional ethnostates. An isolated island of homogenous people is not really an ethnostate. It has to be enumerated somewhere in sovereign law that “only X people can purchase land, wed people, work here or live here.” That’s a true ethnostate.



Places that have laws giving one racial group special rights, it's _because_ they're multi-race societies; Apartheid South Africa, Israel, early 90s Rwanda/Burundi, nazi Germany, Malaysia, the Jim Crow South, etc.  

If your society is already racially homogenous, you don't need laws specifying all that stuff; the only laws that need to specify race would be immigration laws (or just keep immigration to an absolute minimum, or zero).

Your 'deliberate ethnostate' would need to start off multi-racial (because why make laws specifying race if everyone's the same race anyway? That law would do nothing), and end up racially homogenous, and AFAIK that's never happened- You can't put the racial toothpaste back in the tube (or at least no-one ever has, that I know of). Or else it'd need an 'unintentional ethnostate' to write a bunch of laws that serve no purpose, and needlessly piss off the rest of the world, all to pursue something they already had in the first place.



Thomas Paine said:


> There is one, Israel.



(Not to defend Israel- legitimately one of the worst gov'ts anywhere, but...) Israel is about 1/4 arab. Thats far from ethnically homogenous.


----------



## Glad I couldn't help (Nov 9, 2018)

Central/Eastern Europe has a good many ethnostates, where the national ethnicity has an overwhelming majority. Note that this wasn't case a hundred years ago when the regions was under the rule of various empires (German, Hapsburg, Russian and Ottoman). This vibrancy was destroyed by the collapse of those empires into smaller nation-states that eventually had border shifted and their minority populations swapped or destroyed. This is part of why the governments there are so hostile to Muslim migration.



Snuckening said:


> (Not to defend Israel- legitimately one of the worst gov'ts anywhere, but...) Israel is about 1/4 arab. Thats far from ethnically homogenous.


I think being ethnostate is more than just demographics; one of the clear purposes of the Israeli state is being a Jewish state, and that is reflected in its immigration and naturalization policies. In this way, it is as much a successor state of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Herzl was a subject of Franz Joseph, after all) and the Russian Empire as it is of the Ottoman and British Empires.


----------



## Capital Punishment (Nov 9, 2018)

Forced Interracial Marriage and a Jew Cleanup crew


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 9, 2018)

History shows us that the only way you can carve an ethnostate out of a previously ethnically diverse society is through ethnic cleansing. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is either delusional, or lying to you about their true intentions. Without exception, violence and persecution is where these ideas ultimately lead, and attempts to implement them are invariably unsuccessful beyond the short-term anyway.

A society which is fundamentally built on a mistrust or dislike of difference is destined to crumble under the weight of it's own internal contradictions and strife, so why bother to create such a society in the first place? Even if you are completely unmoved by any moral objections to such an idea, a pure consequentialist approach isn't going to save you. The idea is doomed either way.



wylfım said:


> Stop globalization. Stop trying to keep the country together. People naturally segregate if you let them, just dont do anything about it and then the two ethnicities will naturally split up into two states.



You can't stop globalization. It is inevitable that with greater technology, human society will become increasingly centralized. This has been a consistent trend since the dawn of the agricultural revolution, and it is clearly a manifestation of the human propensity towards power accumulation. This is no less a part of human nature than the tribalism you mention, and if you look at history, it consistently wins out in the end.

Societies which embrace the idea of different people working together peacefully are able to accumulate more power than societies which embrace the edict that people should separate themselves into their own tribes. This is one of the reasons that the United States is so powerful, while Russia's power has diminished since the fall of the Soviet Union. The former continues to look outward, while the latter has turned inward.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

There are four ethnostates, japan, israel, north and south korea.

You don't have to have 100% of an ethnicity to have an ethnostate, just a strong majority and a value of keeping a strong majority.

The reasons why I prefer to live in an ethnostate (even inside one that isn't my own ethnicity), is that areas with a single dominant ethnic group are more peaceful and every group (including outgroups) experience higher trust, security and community.

Everyone who doubts this should read Putnam's study or any of the hundred studies on multiculturalism that have been done.

People already self-organize around ethnicity for the most part. And you can get there at the state level once the majority in a democracy sees the data and agrees.

Israel is a fairly young country and is one example how it could be done. There are more peaceful ways to get there.


----------



## Al Gulud (Nov 10, 2018)

lowkey said:


> There are two ethnostates, japan and israel.
> 
> You don't have to have 100% of an ethnicity to have an ethnostate, just a strong majority and a value of keeping a strong majority.
> 
> ...


Nigga I already said I don't care that you want one I want to know how it could happen in a diverse country.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 10, 2018)

If you don't care about what I want to write, why should I care about what you want to ask?

How did it happen in israel? Mass migration, violence, propaganda, aggressive settling and marginalizing the other group.

Say south africa wants to stop their disproportionate murder of white farmers and marginalization of xhosa africans by bantus. They coukd choose to find a peaceful solution.  Agree to parcel up the land into say, three countries. Voila three ethnostates, roughly speaking.


I mean how did a country like germany become multicultural in the first place? That is a situation less than a 100 years old. They could choose to reverse that and take 4-5 decades to put in different laws that are aimed at promoting remigration of non-germans. If they would completely cut their welfare system for example, there are many that would gladly prefer to go back to the country of their ancestors (or another european country). That is a way that a european country could transform it to an ethnistate.

If you read documents from the 70s from eugenicist groups started by rockefeller, they brainstormed about ways to reduce fertility. About half the measures proposed have become status quo in western countries. These are publically available documents offered by the organisations themselves.

Now whether they were the ones that effectwd those changes is another matter, that may not be the case.

But with patience and political will, it's easily possible to "undiversify" a nation.

Or you can go the 1804 Haitin way of creating an ethnostate. I am never much in favor of that path.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> History shows us that the only way you can carve an ethnostate out of a previously ethnically diverse society is through ethnic cleansing.



Poland got closer to being an ethnostate as a result of jewish mass-migration to israel.

The US didn't so much massacre natives as bred them into (out of?) their population. Not to say there were no massacres, but unless you take jared diamond at face value, ethnic cleansing was not the dominant factor. Mass migration was.

You're mostly right about history, but we also have never seen the mass migration movement around the globe at any point in history as we see now, so to say the only way is through cleansing seems inaccurate. The bantu didn't become the most populous group of south africa as a result of ethnic cleansing.

But they could if they wanted at this point parcel up the land and claim an ethnostate encapsulating most of south africa.


----------



## spurger king (Nov 11, 2018)

In the past yeah but now any of you could buy a plane ticket to anywhere right now. It's gonna be an ethnoworld in maybe a couple of centuries which isn't shit compared to the 200,000 years since humans evolved.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 11, 2018)

Buying a plane ticket to somewhere is not the same thing as being allowed to stay in a country.

Try it with North Korea, Israel or Japan and let me know how it goes.


----------



## Save the Loli (Nov 11, 2018)

Palestine is an ethnostate too for Palestinians. It is literally a capital crime in Palestine to sell land to Jews, or to aid Jews in any way. Of course, Palestine still has to deal with Israel stopping their glorious ethnostate from coming into being. North Korea is among the finest examples of an ethnostate around, but like Palestine, it was never very diverse to begin with. They don't like non-Koreans much there.

Israel is a fantastic example as well of an ethnostate, since it was created for the sole purpose of being the homeland for the Jews and nowadays has implemented even more policies to make it clear to the Palestinians that they're a Jewish ethnostate. If for some reason you want an ethnostate in today's diverse world, Israel is ironically the example to follow.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 11, 2018)

lowkey said:


> Poland got closer to being an ethnostate as a result of jewish mass-migration to israel.
> 
> The US didn't so much massacre natives as bred them into (out of?) their population. Not to say there were no massacres, but unless you take jared diamond at face value, ethnic cleansing was not the dominant factor. Mass migration was.
> 
> ...



The Native Americans lived in tribes of small numbers, similar to how the Aboriginals lived in Australia. Comparing how they were demographically replaced by large and coordinated colonial powers to the current situation in the US and Europe is ludicrous. There is just no comparison.

The Jewish comparison similarly fails, because they were fleeing Europe to avoid the possibility of another genocide. The way that you gloss over the historical context in order to make the case that this was an instance of peaceful repatriation is intellectually dishonest to say the very least. These people left Poland after millions of their relatives had been exterminated on an industrial scale.

How about you find me an example of a nation state with the ethnic diversity of France or Germany successfully making the transition to a country with the ethnic diversity of say, Japan, *without* resorting to violence or persecution. I don't think you can do it, and I think you know it.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 11, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> How about you find me an example of a nation state with the ethnic diversity of France or Germany successfully making the transition to a country with the ethnic diversity of say, Japan, *without* resorting to violence or persecution. I don't think you can do it, and I think you know it.



You've already made my case for me by moving the goalposts from "ethnic cleansing" to "violence or persecution".


----------



## Snuckening (Nov 11, 2018)

lowkey said:


> There are four ethnostates, japan, israel, north and south korea.
> 
> You don't have to have 100% of an ethnicity to have an ethnostate, just a strong majority and a value of keeping a strong majority.
> 
> ...



Yeah, if Israel is noted for anything, its surely the nation's peaceful, secure atmosphere. North Korea, too


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> The Jewish comparison similarly fails, because they were fleeing Europe to avoid the possibility of another genocide. The way that you gloss over the historical context in order to make the case that this was an instance of peaceful repatriation is intellectually dishonest to say the very least. These people left Poland after millions of their relatives had been exterminated on an industrial scale.


I don't think you can claim they left because they feared another genocide. People will fall to gambler's fallacy and think that since one just happened they're likely safe since (most) everyone has just acknowledged that genocide is terrible.
I would argue that they left because they felt betrayed by their countries, which is a very different motivation from fear of mass-extermination, and can be brought about without fear. Just look at the "back-to-Africa" black supremacists. They have a perception that society is out to get them somehow (arguable, but still nowhere near an actual overt thing that is happening), and so they want to return to what would essentially be an ethnostate. 
It's about perceptions, not reality. You can easily and relatively morally make people uncomfortable, causing them to go somewhere else. Here's a non-race example: make it illegal to undergo HRT in a certain state, and almost all the trans people will eventually move out.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 11, 2018)

lowkey said:


> You've already made my case for me by moving the goalposts from "ethnic cleansing" to "violence or persecution".



Ethnic cleansing is the systemic forced removal of an ethnic or racial group from a given territory (by means of violence or persecution). No goalpost moves needed.



wylfım said:


> I don't think you can claim they left because they feared another genocide. People will fall to gambler's fallacy and think that since one just happened they're likely safe since (most) everyone has just acknowledged that genocide is terrible.



Put yourself in their shoes. Would you feel safe in a society where the majority population was either complicit or actively involved in the industrial slaughter of your people, no matter how repentant they were about it after the fact? Be honest with yourself.



wylfım said:


> You can easily and relatively morally make people uncomfortable, causing them to go somewhere else. Here's a non-race example: make it illegal to undergo HRT in a certain state, and almost all the trans people will eventually move out.



So in other words, you are advocating persecution. You want to display hostility towards people until their lives become so miserable that they leave, and if that fails, the next step is violence. You people are so predictable.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> So in other words, you are advocating persecution. You want to display hostility towards people until their lives become so miserable that they leave, and if that fails, the next step is violence. You people are so predictable.


Why are you assuming that I hold these views? The OP was asking ways you could create an ethnostate, and I was simply going through them. I am not "advocating" anything, I'm objectively listing methods.
Also, that jump from "make people uncomfortable" to "violence" is all on you


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 11, 2018)

wylfım said:


> Why are you assuming that I hold these views?



Probably because you described them as "relatively moral".



wylfım said:


> Also, that jump from "make people uncomfortable" to "violence" is all on you



It isn't just my assumption, it is the lesson that history has repeatedly taught us. When persecution has failed, violence is the next logical step.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Probably because you described them as "relatively moral".


I would argue that not killing people _is _relatively moral.



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> It isn't just my assumption, it is the lesson that history has repeatedly taught us. When persecution has failed, violence is the next logical step.


If your primary goal is instant ethnic homogenization, yeah, but there's also other ways to do it.
Take for example Latin America; they achieved relative homogenization by inbreeding with the natives.
Killing people is exceptional though, and just because I support ethno-states doesn't meant I would ever support mass genocide. The two aren't intrinsically linked.


----------



## whathefuckman (Nov 11, 2018)

There can actually be, but for some reason the folly of human reason leads the collective to think that we can have an ethnoglobe, which I feel is ridiculous.

Each race is specialized and adapted to their environment and is capable of exploiting the nature and resources available properly without destroying it. Farming and agricultural practices are not 1:1 everywhere on the planet, you cannot farm the soil of Montana as you would the soil of South Africa. The distribution of lactose intolerance  globally is a good example that what is good for one is not necessarily good for all.

I also don't believe that distilling the diverse human genetic pools into one giant pool will be healthy or beneficial in the long term for the human species as a whole because eventually it coagulates into one thing - take a rainbow and mix the colors together and tell me which is better. Genetic diversity is our strength, absolutely, this is truth and not some twisted interpretation it is simply nature. It has to happen naturally and not forced by governments through mass migrations and allowing rapes to accelerate the introduction of a single European race - but I digress.

What motivation would there be to climb the ladder and prove you're top dog if there's nothing that sets you apart. Equality is a forced delusion otherwise it wouldn't be so difficult to force upon people. Equality cannot exist because the races are not equal, people are not equal, we are not copies of one another, and so we will subconsciously always reject the concept that something is equal to us simply by Ego. This is by no means an argument that one race or one person is _*better, *_simply that we are _*different*_. Rejecting this is almost to reject reality.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Nov 11, 2018)

wylfım said:


> I would argue that not killing people _is _relatively moral.



This frames your original statement somewhat differently. If you recall, you weren't ascribing moral virtue to the act of 'not' doing something, you were describing the act of persecuting undesirable people in an effort to make them go away as "relatively moral". This shifts the moral burden away from the position you're advocating (deliberate persecution), by unfavorably comparing it to one that most people would consider to be much worse (murderous acts of violence).

I am not going to acquiesce to this. I think that you should be expected to defend on moral grounds the position you're advocating, and I think that your use of the term "relatively" in this instance is merely a weasal word. You don't get to evade the moral objections to your position by unfavorably comparing it to something else.



wylfım said:


> If your primary goal is instant ethnic homogenization, yeah, but there's also other ways to do it.
> Take for example Latin America; they achieved relative homogenization by inbreeding with the natives.



People of a different racial background interbreeding with one another isn't really in keeping with any idea of an ethnostate that I am aware of.



wylfım said:


> Killing people is exceptional though, and just because I support ethno-states doesn't meant I would ever support mass genocide.



So you do support ethnostates, and aren't merely humoring the question being asked by the OP of this thread, as your earlier reply to me would imply?


----------



## wylfım (Nov 11, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> This frames your original statement somewhat differently. If you recall, you weren't ascribing moral virtue to the act of 'not' doing something, you were describing the act of persecuting undesirable people in an effort to make them go away as "relatively moral". This shifts the moral burden away from the position you're advocating (deliberate persecution), by unfavorably comparing it to one that most people would consider to be much worse (murderous acts of violence).
> 
> I am not going to acquiesce to this. I think that you should be expected to defend on moral grounds the position you're advocating, and I think that your use of the term "relatively" in this instance is merely a weasal word. You don't get to evade the moral objections to your position by unfavorably comparing it to something else.


Okay, I'll take a stance then to clear this up.
Harm and force are morally wrong on an individual level. 
This is different for the government on the macro scale. It is moral for the government to act in a way that ensures the well-being of their people and the continued propagation of the nation (*nods to Machiavelli*). "Morality" in terms of government policies is based upon whether a policy enacts more good than harm to the population at large. Whether or not persecuting people to get them to leave a country is morally wrong is dependent on the ways in which they are being persecuted; in general, though, applying pressure that would make an area undesirable to people, but doesn't force them to leave, is moral, as long as they are then given the right to freely go, à la the Edict of Fontainebleau, because people are not being physically hurt (no long-term damage), and it increases the homogenization and thus trust levels and internal cohesion of the country (high benefit over the long-run).



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> People of a different racial background interbreeding with one another isn't really in keeping with any idea of an ethnostate that I am aware of.


Really? I would argue it is. You make a new ethnicity (hispanics), so that the population becomes _de facto_ a homogenous ethnostate. This has happened in South America. If everyone is related to everyone else, there's going to be a group identity there that binds it together. 



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> So you do support ethnostates, and aren't merely humoring the question being asked by the OP of this thread, as your earlier reply to me would imply?


Sure, though I don't think that really matters. Ideas should stand independently on their merit, not based on whether someone supports or doesn't support them.


----------



## Save the Loli (Nov 12, 2018)

Snuckening said:


> Yeah, if Israel is noted for anything, its surely the nation's peaceful, secure atmosphere. North Korea, too



North Korea is mostly very safe. You don't have to lock your door, there are no street gangs, and no one will steal your bike or try and abduct your kids or whatever. I've heard the villages and rural areas have more crime but there aren't shitholes like Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore in North Korea. Even these parts are safe by third-world standards. You might go as far as to say that North Korea is the most secure country in the world. Don't want to wind in a gulag the rest of your life, assuming one of the many cops there don't just shoot you for criminal behavior not suitable for the Korean race.


----------



## Al Gulud (Nov 12, 2018)

Save the Loli said:


> North Korea is mostly very safe. You don't have to lock your door, there are no street gangs, and no one will steal your bike or try and abduct your kids or whatever. I've heard the villages and rural areas have more crime but there aren't shitholes like Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore in North Korea. Even these parts are safe by third-world standards. You might go as far as to say that North Korea is the most secure country in the world. Don't want to wind in a gulag the rest of your life, assuming one of the many cops there don't just shoot you for criminal behavior not suitable for the Korean race.


Its safe because if you so much as touch a penny without permission you get whipped.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 12, 2018)

Al Gulud said:


> Its safe because if you so much as touch a penny without permission you get killed for treason to the God-Emperor.


Ftfy.


----------



## Snuckening (Nov 12, 2018)

Save the Loli said:


> North Korea is mostly very safe. You don't have to lock your door, there are no street gangs, and no one will steal your bike or try and abduct your kids or whatever. I've heard the villages and rural areas have more crime but there aren't shitholes like Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore in North Korea. Even these parts are safe by third-world standards. You might go as far as to say that North Korea is the most secure country in the world. Don't want to wind in a gulag the rest of your life, assuming one of the many cops there don't just shoot you for criminal behavior not suitable for the Korean race.



I thought the racial homogeneity  was supposed to make your society safe, not literally the most restrictive government and most intrusive police state in the world. With all that state apparatus, you don't think it's a bit rich to attribute that "security" to race? (not even getting into the question of how "secure" you are if, at any point you can get whisked away to a 're-education faccility' by a police force who answers to no-one, because you got a non-regulation haircut,  or faced away from Dear Leader's portrait at the wrong time- which is what i was referring to last comment)


----------



## wylfım (Nov 12, 2018)

Snuckening said:


> I thought the racial homogeneity  was supposed to make your society safe, not literally the most restrictive government and most intrusive police state in the world. With all that state apparatus, you don't think it's a bit rich to attribute that "security" to race? (not even getting into the question of how "secure" you are if, at any point you can get whisked away to a 're-education faccility' by a police force who answers to no-one, because you got a non-regulation haircut,  or faced away from Dear Leader's portrait at the wrong time- which is what i was referring to last comment)


The two aren't exclusive? You can be racially homogeneous and still have a shitty government system.
What racial homogeneity does is increase social cohesion. There's no tensions between different groups that see the opposing group as "other," like in the US and significant parts of Europe.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Nov 12, 2018)

hey, utah's doing alright, isn't it?

frankly I find all of the american white ethnostate ideas to be incredibly dumb. white americans are not a homogeneous group. the only people who think that are the ones who grew up in like, some bland suburb of cleveland where everyone's 15.6% french and 67% german and goes to a mainline protestant church.


----------



## CWCchange (Nov 12, 2018)

lowkey said:


> The US didn't so much massacre natives as bred them into (out of?) their population. Not to say there were no massacres, but unless you take jared diamond at face value, ethnic cleansing was not the dominant factor. Mass migration was.


You forget about smallpox blankets and the fact chugs were killing each other for years anyway.

It was Latin America who made the mistake to breed them into their population, along with emancipated slaves.



Crunchy Leaf said:


> frankly I find all of the american white ethnostate ideas to be incredibly dumb. white americans are not a homogeneous group. the only people who think that are the ones who grew up in like, some bland suburb of cleveland where everyone's 15.6% french and 67% german and goes to a mainline protestant church.


In that case, you can nitpick about any European country, because we know the British, French, Germans, etc. are a mixture going back further.


----------



## White bubblegum (Nov 12, 2018)

wylfım said:


> The two aren't exclusive? You can be racially homogeneous and still have a shitty government system.
> What racial homogeneity does is increase social cohesion. There's no tensions between different groups that see the opposing group as "other," like in the US and significant parts of Europe.


People in the us tend to segregate too. Black people tend to live in mostly black neighborhoods, same with every other race. We have tension between the races because of idiots on social media promoting racial tension, aka the "wypipo are ruining my life" and "niggers steal white women" people. If these people used their platforms to encourage tolerance and peace between the races, we might not have as much racial tension here.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Nov 12, 2018)

CWCchange said:


> You forget about smallpox blankets and the fact chugs were killing each other for years anyway.
> 
> It was Latin America who made the mistake to breed them into their population, along with emancipated slaves.
> 
> ...


yeah but the french don't think of themselves as being part celt, part german, part roman or whatever except maybe romantically, they have a unified culture

whereas irish-americans, italian-americans, swedish-americans, still have distinct cultural traditions

or even like...the people of appalachia and the people of utah are both mostly of english descent but i don't think they have a similar culture or experience in any way other than speaking english

and religion would be a huge problem in any hypothetical ethnostate, I realize Germany has protestants and catholics, england has multiple varieties of protestants (and a handful of catholics), but the amount of christian religious diversity in the US is extremely high and i don't think that'd work well in an explicitly stated ethnostate.

edit: my point was that a white ethnostate would only work *if *everyone was mixed european descent--so no unique ethnic background or heritage to care about anymore, and thus, a unified white american culture. but this isnt the case.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 12, 2018)

White bubblegum said:


> People in the us tend to segregate too. Black people tend to live in mostly black neighborhoods, same with every other race. We have tension between the races because of idiots on social media promoting racial tension, aka the "wypipo are ruining my life" and "niggers steal white women" people. If these people used their platforms to encourage tolerance and peace between the races, we might not have as much racial tension here.


It's inbuilt instinct. Infants display preferences for people of their same skin color when they are mere months old. Rather than admitting that maybe people are naturally biased towards their own kind, the authors of the study used this to declare that we need "interventions from a younger age."
The myth of multiculturalism is dead, and we are the failed experiment.


----------



## Crunchy Leaf (Nov 12, 2018)

wylfım said:


> It's inbuilt instinct. Infants display preferences for people of their same skin color when they are mere months old. Rather than admitting that maybe people are naturally biased towards their own kind, the authors of the study used this to declare that we need "interventions from a younger age."
> The myth of multiculturalism is dead, and we are the failed experiment.


does this apply to babies adopted by people of a different race, or biracial babies? otherwise how do you know they aren't just preferring people who look like their primary caretakers


----------



## White bubblegum (Nov 12, 2018)

wylfım said:


> It's inbuilt instinct. Infants display preferences for people of their same skin color when they are mere months old. Rather than admitting that maybe people are naturally biased towards their own kind, the authors of the study used this to declare that we need "interventions from a younger age."
> The myth of multiculturalism is dead, and we are the failed experiment.


There's having biases towards your own kind and then there's being a grown adult who hates people of other races. I have a bias towards hispanics and a little bias against the chinese, but that doesnt mean i talk shit about chinese people. It doesn't take much cognitive function to realize that you can have a preference for your own race while not hating on people of other races. You dont have to hate them. Or love them. Just treat them like you would want to be treated.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 12, 2018)

Crunchy Leaf said:


> does this apply to babies adopted by people of a different race, or biracial babies? otherwise how do you know they aren't just preferring people who look like their primary caretakers


Well that's the point. It's instinct to prefer people who look like your primary caretaker because _they're more likely to take care of you_, because you have higher percentage of genes in common. Conversely, an "other" is more likely to harm you because you are both competing for the same resources, and don't share as many genes.


----------



## wylfım (Nov 12, 2018)

White bubblegum said:


> There's having biases towards your own kind and then there's being a grown adult who hates people of other races. I have a bias towards hispanics and a little bias against the chinese, but that doesnt mean i talk shit about chinese people. It doesn't take much cognitive function to realize that you can have a preference for your own race while not hating on people of other races. You dont have to hate them. Or love them. Just treat them like you would want to be treated.


 but groups are never going to blend successfully without interbreeding. It's easy to see that today, where literally everyone is out to get the evil white male for "oppressing" them. Hence the concept of an ethnostate. So you don't have to deal with all the segregation and tension that comes up in multiculturalism.


----------



## White bubblegum (Nov 12, 2018)

wylfım said:


> but groups are never going to blend successfully without interbreeding. It's easy to see that today, where literally everyone is out to get the evil white male for "oppressing" them. Hence the concept of an ethnostate. So you don't have to deal with all the segregation and tension that comes up in multiculturalism.


Well like I said, we're already relatively segregated(in the us). There's plenty of white-majority towns, black-majority towns, mexican majority towns, etc. Sure, there are places that are more mixed, but no one is being forced to live anywhere. 

The reason I believe people are out to blame other races for their own personal problems is stupidity, not "multiculturism" itself. None of the black people I know blame wypipo for the downfall of the black race because all of the black people I know are educated, normal people. And they do reside in black neighborhoods, but we get along because we're not cretins.

 Something you'll notice about racists(particularly the "wypipo reee" ones) is that they can't hold an argument. Make a good point and they'll either insult you or refuse to engage with you further.  This is because they're stupid. Either the education system or their families failed them in teaching them 1. Tolerance and 2. Open mindedness towards new ideas. You could remedy this by not allowing schools to push the idea that white people are the devil and not allow students to encourage that idea. Encourage families to teach their children the values of tolerance and kindness. Don't give racist people the time of day.

Even if we don't all live in a literal melting pot, we can still learn to get along with each other when we have to.


----------



## TenMilesWide (Nov 13, 2018)

wylfım said:


> It's inbuilt instinct. Infants display preferences for people of their same skin color when they are mere months old. Rather than admitting that maybe people are naturally biased towards their own kind, the authors of the study used this to declare that we need "interventions from a younger age."
> The myth of multiculturalism is dead, and we are the failed experiment.


infants also display preferences for shitting themselves so I don't think they're the best example.


----------



## Otis Boi (Nov 13, 2018)

White bubblegum said:


> one of the black people I know blame wypipo for the downfall of the black race because all of the black people I know are educated, normal people. And they do reside in black neighborhoods, but we get along because we're not cretins.



Honestly my uncle was one of those "WYPIPO be killin us with crack and shit" until he moved into an all white area and had an epiphany that white people didn't care about him at all. Maybe him laying off the crack helped with that as well.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 13, 2018)

CWCchange said:


> You forget about smallpox blankets and the fact chugs were killing each other for years anyway.



I did not, that's why I wrote, "unless you take Jared Diamond at face value", who wrote the book Germs, guns and steel.


----------



## White bubblegum (Nov 13, 2018)

Otis Boi said:


> Honestly my uncle was one of those "WYPIPO be killin us with crack and shit" until he moved into an all white area and had an epiphany that white people didn't care about him at all. Maybe him laying off the crack helped with that as well.


Probably both. When you're not in a right state of mind its easy to blame other people for your problems. Especially people of other races. I'm glad your uncles doing better now, though.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 14, 2018)

White bubblegum said:


> Well like I said, we're already relatively segregated(in the us)



It is common in Europe too for different people to self-segregate.

What do people here think is the cause for this? Is it because people prefer to be with their own kind, or is it because of media-induced racism, or something else?


----------



## Kyria the Great (Nov 14, 2018)

lowkey said:


> It is common in Europe too for different people to self-segregate.
> 
> What do people here think is the cause for this? Is it because people prefer to be with their own kind, or is it because of media-induced racism, or something else?



Probably abit of column A and column B, which is fine as long as it doesn't turn to violence and murder. While I think an Ethno-State would lead to the serious sacrifice of one's soul to the point it would cost too much in the department, at the same time a country needs some unified ideal that isn't just government benefits as they eventually will disappear as not having a unified ideal is one of the things that lead to division and thus possible Ethnonationalism that consumed Germany, Japan, the Balkans, most Middle-Eastern countries, most of Africa, etc.


----------



## lowkey (Nov 14, 2018)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> Ethnic cleansing is the systemic forced removal of an ethnic or racial group from a given territory (by means of violence or persecution). No goalpost moves needed.



It seems I have made a serious mistake. I've always been under the impression that ethnic cleansing was synonymous with genocide. I had no idea that deportations only could constitute ethnic cleansing. That invalidates some of the earlier points I've made in this thread.

Then I'd like to rise to your earlier challenge: Your challenge was:



Hellbound Hellhound said:


> How about you find me an example of a nation state with the ethnic diversity of France or Germany successfully making the transition to a country with the ethnic diversity of say, Japan, *without* resorting to violence or persecution. I don't think you can do it, and I think you know it.



I think the reverse is mostly true too: you don't turn a nation state with ethnic diversity of say japan into a country with the ethnic diversity of france or germany without resorting to violence or persecution either.

If you get technical, anything that a state chooses to do, including raising a tax or creating a new one, is rested on the implicit monopoly of violence that the state has. If people go along with it peacefully, it may seem non-violent, but that is as much the case for deportations. And if resisted, then it leads to employing state violence.


We are living in one of the most peaceful times in history. Certainly there are many deep problems and there are war and conflict ridden places in the world, though compared to nearly any point in history, people are far less likely to die as a result of conflict.

This would mean that peaceful solutions to problems are more likely than they have been at any point in the past.

Take for example catalonia. They declared independance after a referendum last year. Spain did not agree, imprisoned several former ministers on charges of rebellion.

Now if the spanish government had not challenged this claim of independance, it would have been a violent-free creation of a new state. Now, I don't think it's very likely for any state to just let an independance movement go (militarily) unchallenged, but any such violence is the result of denial of people's desire or right for self-governance. And independance movements or rebellions become more likely the more that a state does not address the things that people desire the most from their government.

And if the desire and willingness to defend their independance in the case of catalonia was bigger (the referendum's result weren't clearcut from my limited knowledge about the subject), or maybe if they had gotten the backing of a foreign state that would promise to protect their independance, spain could have decided not to challenge the independance claim.

Now then, Catalonians, if they still desire independance, are forced to figure out a military way to get their independance, because a peaceful path would not be accepted.

I think a similar thing would be true for any would be ethnostate, whether currently existing state or result of an independance movement. If sufficient people desired it (and I don't think anything close to enough people desire it to have any appear in the next 3 decades at least) and they prepared for it and sufficiently powerful support, there would be a peaceful path. Of course people are unlikely to give up their power and any country that loses a part would immediately fear for losing a second part and would try to make an example, the way spain made an example of catalonian leadership.

And this refusal of accepting peaceful means, means that when the desire for an ethnostate has grown in any area to sufficient critical mass, it can only be violent and it is more likey to have a genocidal ethnic cleansing rather than a peaceful one.


----------

