Can there actually be an ethnostate?

[Snuckening]

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.

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

 

[wylfım]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

Why are you assuming that I hold these views?

Probably because you described them as "relatively moral".

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]

Probably because you described them as "relatively moral".

I would argue that not killing people is relatively moral.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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).

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.

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.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

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]

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]

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

Ftfy.

 

[Snuckening]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.


In that case, you can nitpick about any European country, because we know the British, French, Germans, etc. are a mixture of stuff as well.

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]

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]

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