Ethno-States

By definition, yes. It's intent is to destroy (expel) the cultures that are foreign and remove the ethnicities that are foreign. That is a textbook ethno-state.

The times have changed somewhat since then. We don't really have many places where so many different languages are spoken in their own little segregations. Actually, we do, but only as a result of immigration, which ethno-state policies could have prevented. So now we find ourselves in a position where our own cultures and ethnicities are being drained and replaced by foreign ones. Which one is better; destroying a foreign presence or a native presence?

Yeah, but the nation-state invokes the question of "Who is a Frenchman?"

Anyone who lives in France? If so, then it is not an ethnostate. And if culture is not to be rooted out, when does local expression of culture and tradition become seperate enough that they must be considered different ethnicities?

Are scottish people truly a seperate ethnicity from the English? If so, how is Meridonal and spetrentitonal French people supposed to be one ethnicity?
If Scotsmen and the English truly are one ethnicity and the French are too, how are Catalan people not also French?

The problem of ethnostates is that culture and tradition is evolving and much too complex to be reduced to ethnostates, that almost but their nature MUST supress cultural expression.

And again, the problem is that the ethnostate mainly destroys NATIVE ethnic and cultural expression that may otherwise have evolved locally and organically.

Pretty much what I said before: Yugoslavia was more powerful than all the Balkan nations today, because they define themselves by ethnicity, or rather restricted themselves through their ethnicity.

Like, the question is, what do you exactly mean by ethnic nationalism. Many here have no problem with defending de-facto ethnic nation states like the Kurds because they are trying to be socialist and are anti-imperialist (even though Maoists would debate you on that). It only becomes a problem when ethnic nationalism becomes in itself the defining factor of a national ideology - history showed that this sort of ideology is almost always being used to enforce class collaboration and the oppression of class struggle by subordinating something that is verifiable (class contradictions and material reality) under something that vague, unscientific and has no inherent value in itself (ethnicity).

Maybe, and here's a thought, let the people decide this. Rather than trying to overlay your finicky schema of how the world should work and attempting to micromanage problems thereby posed, perhaps in order to rationalize human chaos?

Exactly.
In a locally-oriented confederalist democratic society, this is where culture and ethnicity thrives the best.

Because "ethnicity" is bourgeois and arbitrary as it is, and as the basis for a government utterly reactionary.

Example.
In what way is that destroying native culture and ethnicity? It's the opposite of that that is currently destroying native culture and ethnicity.

Yes, they are, but they're also native Britons just as we are. We're two sides to the same coin, a multi-dimensional coin because you have to include the Welsh who are about 50% ethnic sheep.

Maybe they are. It's not as if ethnicity isn't tangible.

Not going to lie, I haven't a clue what those two are mate.

Ultimately though this comes down to a decision by the people of the land. An Englishman will say the Scots, Welsh and Norns are their people. As will the Scots, Welsh and Norns. A Frenchman will tell you who are his people, so on and so forth.

I know exactly what an Anglo, Celt and the like is. I know exactly what Anglo, Celt etc cultures are. It's not very bloody complex at all.

It's not vague, it is scientific and it holds a world of meaning.

...

Right-winger dismisses economics right off the bat because they "don't have a place in the topic". Huge surprise…

You know, it's supposed to be the other way around. You tell us why you support ethno-states and we offer a rebuttal. Still, here's what I think.

There is no inherent benefit to living in a racially homogeneous states. That by itself should be enough of an argument, really.

There is no way to build or maintain an ethno-state, unless you think it is both viable and ethical to subject innocent people to an extraordinary amount of arbitrary violence.

Assuming actual ethno-states ever existed, they certainly don't anymore for a long series of reasons and trying to undo that process is nothing but backward idealist delusion.

Yeah, here's a thought experiment for you. Say you actually manage to find your way to power, and seek to enact your policies aiming at the establishment at an ethno-state, better known as "ethnic cleansing". What are you going to do with non-whites who don't want to leave? What are you going to do with interracial couples? What are you going to do with mixed-race children?

Economics has everything to do with this topic. The material base is unavoidably affected by the social superstructure placed over it.

It's very nature as an ethno state means its function will be arranged to the benefit of the dominant ethnic group. It's one of the main bourgeois drives of nationalism, because the laws, customs, government, etc, are arranged to benefit the ownership class, which is more likely than not the dominant group, at the expense of minority populations. For national bourgeoisie without access to colonial/"developing" markets the exploitation of minority locals is the next best thing. See: Ireland under England, modern Israel, Spain, France, etc.

As I mentioned, the strict mainstreaming limits how local envirnonments may develop organically. You can throw all the immigrants out, but still and institutional repression of ethnic and cultural development is held back by the ethno-state itself, replacing natural organic evolving culture with a stale frankenstein that follows a cultural decree rather than the will of the actual people who are expected to partake in it.

If you ask most scots if they're the same ethnicity as englishmen, they'll say "no", and I think most scotsmen would take offence at one using the terms "scotsman" and "englishman" interchangably, indicating that they in spite of being nearly the same, and MUCH CLOSER than northern-french and the southern-french, they still would not thrive in the same nation-state, indicating that ethnicity is much more intanglible than you'd think.

That is ignoring that the ethnostate has a vested interest in having an in-group of people it can pit against an out-group of foreigners to keep social cohesion within the state. It is directly against the interest of the ethnostate to totally get rid of foreigners.

Decent post

It's like this autist has zero understanding of civilization. Honestly. That's kiddie tier as fuck.

Give me an argument against ethno-states based on economics then.

I think it is better manners to ask other's opinions before throwing yours out there. That way both opinions are invited.

I'd forcibly deport them, and if nowhere wanted to take a bunch of them I'd have no real issue with disappearing them.

Yes, but an ethno-state wouldn't have a dominated ethnicity because they'd be one ethnicity. What kind of shite ethno-state would keep foreign ethnicities around?

The entire point of an ethno-state is to GET RID of foreigners, not keep them around. Otherwise it's not an ethno-state is it? That'd just be a place where we all have a good laugh at the expense of the black kid, big difference.

Forgot to answer this bit, apologies. Well, the foreign part of the mixed race couple would get thrown out. If the husband/wife wanted so badly to stay with them they could go too, I wouldn't stop them from leaving. Nor would I stop them coming back. I'd also get rid of mixed race children.

Yeah, again, that'd be the ideological justification for the ethnostate, but just like all ethno/nation-states today, that's not actually gonna come to fruition unless there's some kind of big scary neighbourg to to keep the population in line, again, because it is directly in the interest of the nation-state itself to have a foreign out-group to pit it's own poplation against in order to keep social cohesion.

A great example of this is the republic of Turkey.

Is what Frenchmen said about Armenians. And Americans about Irishmen. And Flemish Belgians about Walloon Belgians.

It's funny how white nationalists are in complete denial about their historically self-inflicted destruction. Pajeet having sex with a honkie is anuddah shoah… but centuries of ruinous wars between white folk are just a serious case of boys having fun, I guess.

The entire point of an ethno state is to establish one ethnic group as dominant over the rest. It's the use of force to establish an exclusion zone for the bourgeoisie at the expense of the foreign bourgeoisie, for which the workers are swindled by their own elevation over domestic minorities or imported foreign labor.

Ethno states are just as big a scam as liberal democracy. You get cucked by the rich, only now you're willing so because the guy fucking you just happens to look and speak like you do.

The best case for the ethnostate is cohesion. It is easier to govern for people with the same or similar cultural values and historical ties. The alternative is creating a new identity, but if one group fails to realise this idealised vision of life in a given country then eventually the system falls apart. See the US.

really makes you think

Okay, I'm understanding your argument now. You're saying that the sense of superiority afforded to the dominant group against the inferior group would act as a bonding agent between the people. It's give the people a "boogeyman" to band together against, and if that boogeyman was to disappear it could jeopardise social cohesion because of the lack of said boogeyman to rally against. Is that correct?

I'm not a white nationalist. But no, it's not the entire point of an ethno-state to dominate over a group. That'd be the entire point of a slave-state and such.

This. If all people are among their own kind, in a culture that is home to them then social cohesion would surely be better. I can remember back just a decade or so ago when my city was far more native than it is now. People left their doors unlocked, everyone was everyone's friends, there was a real sense of community and every care for one another. Not so much anymore. As the foreign population has gone up, the social cohesion has dropped massively.

You are a huge faggot

States by their very nature are institutions of domination, bakka. You don't need the most extreme form of domination to still have domination.

But if you have an ethno-state you expel foreign ethnicities. Otherwise it's not an ethno-state.

That's hitting the nail pretty much on the head, yeah.

Okay, excellent. That's a good argument. I'm going to remember that and do some digging around for material on it. Cheers.

Your wishful thinking is idiotic. Even a cursory glance at history shows that even ethically close groups fight and fought all the time. In fact they probably fight amongst themselves more because of spooky bullshit like which god to pray to, king to revere, the idea that as a group they must be uniform, etc.

Cheers.
Nice talking to you.

No. Ethno-states are more about forceful assimilation, not expulsion. Also, you kind of missed the point.

If you didn't know, NazBols are far-right still in the closet.

Says a branch which includes unironic anarcho-authoritarians and ancap tier hedonic euphorists.

Then explain to me why on Earth my city just ten years ago was a glorious haven, and now it's a cesspit riddled in crime where nobody trusts on another. This place was quite literally better when it was more native. How is it idiotic to want that same kind of societal trust and cohesion?

You are thinking in a rigid way, when we don't work like that. Ethno-state or not there is going to be fighting and wars in future, over one thing or another. All we can do is attempt to change course to avoid the immediate danger, we're near blind to all other future dangers. Violence erupting from mixed ethnicity states is the immediate danger, and ethno-states are a way to change course and avoid that. Every causes war for crying out loud, everything. Everything we're doing to day has war and violence attributed to it at some point in history, but we do these things because they are the best choices at the time. To me, it seems like you want to have humanity on a course that will avoid violence for eternity, but that is simply impossible.

There's so many fancy little buzzwords everyone wants to dance under these days I got bored of them. I have no idea what a NazBol is.

I especially haven't a bloody clue what this Anarcho-Transhumanism shit is.

China grants Tibet and Inner Mongolia with quite a bit of autonomy, as well as Russia with some areas.

Because it's just a primitive "we vs. them" mentality that isn't constructive in any way. What's the point of having a a homogenous ethnic nation, especially in the west where no one is actually ethnically homogenous?

If people are fully capable of living parallel in a society then why not?

They're both mainly shitposting flags fam. Look up Ray Kurzweil for an entertaining laugh.

NazBol generally are posters who have sympathies for both modern versions of left and right views, recovering pollacks etc, there are specific philosophies of it though but it's super not easy mode stuff.

It's not just about ethno-states. It's about everything. Your ideas can't exist in a vacuum. If current-day Europe is not 100% white, it's not because of some evil agency pulling the strings from behind but because the material conditions led to such demographic changes. Global capitalism caused immigration to happen — and it will continue to happen as long as global inequality exists.

So you're going to arbitrarily break up families through displacement and outright murder. Surely you realize that you're going to encounter a little bit of resistance? Think for a minute…

I'm gonna come and knock on your door tomorrow. Then I'll just tell you that we don't want your kind around here and that you're gonna have to leave the country. The moment you open your mouth to protest, I put a hole in your head. How is that? See, two can play the edgelord game.

If you don't think that Russia and China don't ultimately control those areas I don't know what to tell you.

meant to link to

But it is a "we vs. them" when it is exactly that. When the native populations of co many countries are suffering because of incoming foreign populations that it quite literally is a "we vs. them".

You forget what we are. Animals.

Societal stability.

You can have global capitalism without opening your borders to people. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You know who's getting arbitrarily hurt right now? Hurt for no reason, and then hurt more when they speak out against it? My own people, natives. Of course I would do anything to protect my people, including the use of arbitrary violence against those who refused to leave once ordered.

It's not about being edgy, it's about seeing your own people suffer so much and realising that something must be done.

I don't know what hole you live in but dollars to donuts the decline of your city is due to the same market forces effecting everyone else. It's idiotic to think that just because someone believes in your special flavor of spook that they aren't going to rob you if they need to. It happens in America literally all the time, in places that have been ethnically homogeneous for centuries, because the economy has dropped down the shitter.

The more you talk the more you demonstrate how naive you are. You don't know why your city is the way it is because you don't know anything. You don't know what drives history. You don't know what drives crime. You don't know how people work. You just wrap yourself comfortably in your preconceived, reactionary notions, Wishfully thinking that if everyone looked and sounded like you that at least you would be spared the effects of a degrading global economy. You take refuge in a fantasy instead of trying to come to grips with the problem and find an actual solution. Spoilers, it doesn't matter if they're your ethnicity or not, because you're going to suffer the effects of global capital just like everyone else. Instead of blaming the evil foreigners that are just as much victims as you are, maybe you could unfuck yourself for a second and take a look at who brought these people here in the first place and why they had to leave wherever they came from, because nothing besides changing the underlying productive motives is going to help you. Whether it's an ethno state or some other bourgeois bullshit, the logic of capital is inescapable. Either you do the exploiting or you will be exploiting, and guess which one you will be.

Are you subscribing to the rapefugee meme or what?
Can you give links to actual social scientific studies that says "imargeton es bad :DDDD ebin whyte peeple"
That was a pictoral quote btw, but please link.

We have evolved to the point where we don't need to follow primitive structures and thought. This is why gender roles are going away, for example.
In short, we aren't fucking cave people anymore.

what?
Just like the nuclear famalam is the center of societal stability?
Lmao. People of different creeds, religions, cultures, etc. are capable of living next to each other as long as they aren't xenophobic retards.
You need to have your neighbour be white because it offers you social stability?
Are you somehow incapable of talking to someone who's asian or black, etc.?

You can't be part of global capital without integration into the global capital apparatus. The retirements of neoliberalism dictate open borders and as free a flow of labor as possible. The alternative is to be shut out of the global market, in which case if you think you're suffering now just wait until your country is facing global economic exclusion, or to be 'liberated' and a more tractable neoliberal regime installed. But hell, even North Korea, the ethnostate par excellence, is still subject to and integrated with the necessities of global capital, however tightly they control their borders.

Unless you start dealing with reality you're never going to find real solutions to your problems.

The requirements of global capital*

But we do, because we're animals and we'll never outgrow that primitive part of our brains. The centre of our brains has been around for long time before humans existed. That's where our primitive desires and behaviours come from, we can't get rid of it. To think that we will is nothing short of self-aggrandisement.

No, no I can not give links to social science studies. I'm not actually sure whether any have been done or not. But you are a fool if you think Europe, including Britain, is not suffering precisely because of immigration right now. Sweden wasn't so rapey just a few years ago. Neither was Germany. Nor France. Or Britain. Just a coincidence that warrants no further worry, right?

I truly do not see why open borders is needed to be a successful nation, economically. Goods, services and so on can still be operated and sold to foreign buyers. I don't see why any country would need to ship in foreigners just to be economically viable. If X country can produce a good that Y country wants to buy, do you think Y country would refuse to buy the good simple because X is ethnically homogeneous?

You deserve your own north korea.

thx bb, gud input

You can't. European borders have never been so carefully guarded, and yet immigrants still try to overcome them in the hope of reaching the country they aim for. You'd have to use unrealistically violent methods to ensure the purity of your hypothetical ethno-state in the current context of global capitalism.

No, they aren't.

So it's alright when you're the one doing the violence? You whine about your fellow whites supposedly being oppressed, but you have no qualms about slaughtering non-whites because they refuse to join in your delusional plan.

Pic related.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry that rows a boat across the water and comes here ILLEGALLY is given permission to stay, then given citizenship and then borders inside the EU don;t matter.

Thanks for telling me how my people aren't being;
It makes me feel better to know that my people aren't being hurt. Phew.

I punch you in the face. Do you punch me back?

only as long as its non white. White people are not allowed to have ethnostates because they represent a threat to jewish globalism. Everyone else is too dumb to present a threat and asians love it.

Success is irrelevant. Nations are irrelevant. Capital, incarnated in this virulent form of neoliberalism, requires the free flow of money and people and property. Costs of production must be constantly diminished, which if you aren't lucky enough to live in an advanced Western nation means importing cheap labor, both to exploit them and undermine the value of your own.

And if you think that global capital is going to let your country close its doors and still engage in international commerce, think again. That's not how capital accumulation works.

Spooky.

You're probably shitposting but I can't let this slide. Merkel literally broke EU law (Dublin II) per decree to enable a free flowing stream of migrants and indirectly supporting human trafficking across the Mediterranean.

Hell, the guy who drove the truck through the Christmas market in Berlin travelled through 5 fucking countries with 13 fucking identities while being known to the police as being a criminal and yet shit happened at any border. You realize you can travel through the EU without even recognizing you just crossed a border, right?

Maybe you meant to word this differently, but advanced Western countries are the ones doing the importing of the cheap labour.

No, you can't. At its heart, capitalism is about profit, and will do whatever it can to increase it and cut costs. This includes cheap foreign labor, white or non-white, especially from countries that are considered 2nd or 3rd world. Why do you think that as a nation becomes more advanced, its native population tends to work less and less and relies on foreign work more and more? Why are jobs even outsourced to begin with? Why is relying on the return of jobs that will inevitably be automated ultimately a bad idea? Why do the capitalists do everything they can to create people like you instead of trying to improve relation between different working-class people? Do you really think the rich white asshole doesn't get along perfectly well with the rich non-white asshole next door? Come on fam.

No shit, but this mass immigration literally only happens because of capitalism. Racialist and traditionalist explanations are utterly useless.

Okay, these are both good answers. These got my noggin joggin a touch.

I'm not talking about basic brain function. I am saying that our social interaction has evolved. States and systems of governance are just different forms of social relationships*
We don't have a need for outdated and pre-historical social relationships. The concept of a etho-state is just grand tribal thinking.
We are animals, yes, but we are unlike any other animal in terms of our social relationships.

There's a difference between immigration and mass immigration. Immigration can be benificial to a nation* but mass immigration caused by war can be less so. The problem of displaced populations doesn't demand isolation by other nations. Instead, we should identify the problem, which is capitalism*, and try to solve it.
This would be beneficial, especially to xenophobes like yourself, because it would restore and develop the immigrants original home.

Implication is not the same as causation
Crime is caused by a boatload of social factors, not the ethnicity of someone. Unless you want to link me to study that states that crime is caused by someones phenotype, i.e racial biology.

*Landauer
*bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-13/it-isn-t-just-asian-immigrants-who-excel-in-the-u-s-
tadias.com/10/15/2014/census-foreign-born-africans-most-educated-immigrants-in-u-s/
*When I'm talking about capitalism as the cause I mean the military industrial complex, nations trying to influence the global economy and other nations through regional meddling, etc.

Doesn't this basically prove OP wrong though? Capitalism, on both an ideological and practical level, will always be a stronger force than nationalism. Lolberts and neoliberals even acknowledge this, but choose to embrace it.

Nobody is being "shipped in". I see this line of reasoning a lot. People are choosing to work in a certain place. They are not being abducted and arriving like goods from a cargo ship.
At the moment, you are even denying someone from England who wants to go and teach English in Japan or whatever. How do you feel about jobs that cannot be done to the same standard by the country's ethnicity?

They're no more your people than those who share the same hair colour or birthmarks.

Humans are your own people. Literally.

So you'll make other people suffer for your people. What about those on the other side shouthing "my own people!!"?
The lack of perspective and empathy in this argument is outstanding.

I understand your frustrations, but I don't know why you insist that the solution is to get rid of people with different genetics. It's like you saw some people doing bad things and said "I don't want these sort of people here". It's a perfectly natural and human thing to do. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to do, as it's obviously unjust.

You identify a problem, but it's the wrong problem. Stop to ask yourself - why are the immigrants coming? If you trace back the problem you will see - it is capitalism.

They're quickly reaching the point that soon automation will more likely than not replace importing cheap workers en masse and instead focus on the selective importation of skilled labor a la h1b. But you're right, it's not as though Western countries are immune to that kind of thing.

But what are we seeing growing all over the West? Tribal behaviour. We haven't outgrown this, it's just inside of us.

I'm not a xenophobe, I'm just not walking around with my eyes closed and I see what's happening. If something is bad, I don't like it. I don't dislike something simply for being foreign, I dislike something for being bad.

No, but when a correlation matches so strongly then only an idiot would shun it.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-for-immigrants-Lord-Mandelson-admits.html
If you don't like that paper, just find the same story in some other paper.

Yes they are, but thanks for telling me what they are.

No, my people are my people.

I absolutely would, yes.

They have their own country with their own people.

My empathy lies with my people, no others.

Tell that to the thousands of girls being sexually exploited in Britain. Then also explain to them why it was all covered up.

There's not only one problem you know. Should we just go full socialist but keep every foreigner here? You reckon that'll stop them killing people and other such pleasant integration activities?

They don't have a particularly good track record, especially when they actively start calling themselves ethno-states. Nazi Germany is the premier example. Their ethnostate ended in the entire nation getting bombed to shit and then chopped in two. The Yugoslavian states still haven't fully recovered economically from their ethnic breakup. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe collapsed in on itself twice, under two different (and opposing) sets of ethnic ideologues. It's just not a good idea, and it doesn't work. That's my biggest problem with it. Even the Soviet Union, with all its problems, and there were many, lasted a hell of a lot longer than most modern ethnostates.

What arguments are the for an ethno-state?

Cohesion? Goes away quickly after you remove the other. Ethnicity isn't wholly genetic, given a few years you will have conflicts between say northerners and southerners who have different cultural values and must further divide the ethno-state or purge more people. If you don't, you're going to end up with a state of multiple ethnicitys who don't have the same culture or talk the same, even if they do look alike.

Saftey? Capitalism is causing crime, not muh browns. As automation destroys employment your population will increasingly become unemployed and turn to crime. Getting mugged by some guys who look like me doesn't seem more pleasant than some shitskins.

Culture? Has already been mutated into something else. You're not getting a return to classical music or traditional values, you're stuck with edm and hookup culture and kicking out or killing muh browns won't change that. If anything you'll destroy most culture you do have by trying to preserve what you view as the "true culture of the people".

So we've got an unattainable goal that won't fix the issue, at best ot will delay it.

right, the sight of non whites is torture.

This is factually false. If you get to Europe illegally, it's very likely you'll get deported.

White people aren't specifically targeted by such violence. In fact, Muslims are much more likely to fall victims to Islamic terrorism. What makes you think it's special or unique when it happens to white people?

This analogy is beyond retarded and highly indicative of how intellectually dysfunctional you are. If you punch me in the face, I punch YOU back — but I don't go punching other people with the same skin color as you who were minding their own business with the excuse of "protecting my people".

You sincerely sound like a backward sociopath who completely lacks nuance, discernment and empathy. You're fit for an "ethno-state" alright; you should join a pack of Neanderthals.

Who are your people? Why? Is looking like you enough to be considered 'your people?' How much variation is allowed on the genetic level? What about socially? Are they still your people if they have an accent? Will you violently enforce correct speech as well? What about other cultural cross pollination? If people in your hot new ethnostate adopt foreign fads will they get kicked out for betraying your backwards culture? What other arbitrary divisions will your raceocracy enforce?

Israel is an ethno state, it fucking sucks

A more apt example would be North Korea.

Well, history is cyclic so the best we can ever hope for is a delay to a problem. Fighting and war will inevitably come around again, it's about pushing it back as far as possible while you can. But I get what you're saying.

I'd say Germany's collapse wasn't to do with its desire to be an ethno-state, but more to do with the fact that people didn't want it expanding and become a superpower. But I get where you're coming from.

Say that to all the foreigners who arrived here illegally and weren't kicked out.

>Muslims are much more likely to fall victims to Islamic terrorism
I don't care though, they're not my people.

I'm all of the above simply because I want to have a place where people can grow up safe, where women aren't scared for their safety (see Sweden). Okay.

Britons. Because they're native to Britain. No, I would not enforce any cultural or speech stuff on them. There's the Welsh who speak Welsh, Scottish and Irish who speak Gaelic and so on. I like that.

Can you expand on that please? In what way does it suck?

Israel definitely isn't according to OP's definition of an ethno-state (a nation-state that is populated entirely by people of a single specific ethnicity). It is arguably segregationist but it isn't an "ethno-state" — be it only because that would be nigh impossible to achieve.

Who, specifically is going to stop us? A system cannot act in such a way. So who we talking about here?

Where does an ethnicity begin and end? How do you quantify genetic purity? If you're German and have brown hair and blue eyes are you then 96% pure while a German with blonde hair and brown eyes is 94.5% pure?

Even in countries that are 'ethnically homogenous', you'll find that people on one side of the country might have more similarities with people two countries away than with the people in the same country on the other end

It sucks for the people of Israel because they are at perpetual war and have to live under a brutal police state.

It sucks for the neighbours of Israel because they have to live next to a neighbour who thinks they are less than human.

It sucks for the rest of the world because we have to deal with the geopolitical backlash in the form of a crumbling middle east and rising terrorism (not the good kind)

What IS good about the Israeli ethno state?

They commit human rights abuses all the time. They take shit tons of money from our government, have basically a stranglehold on our politicians and then after taking our money, completely defy our foreign policy requests.

It would like to be an ethno state

Simple question. Why? I don't want to hear 'escaping war' as any number of nations closer to home for them would take them. So why is it Europe they want to come to? Answer this and you solve the problem. Whatever they're coming for legally exclude them from it.

Why do reactionaries cling to pseudo-scientific bullshit?

agreed, Israel maybe a segregated state, but far from an ethno state.
people from other ethnicity aren't banned or killed (like in op's wet dream)

speaking of which.
OP, you fag, why don't you go to your local black neighborhood and tell them about your idea and how you feel about them?
have the courage of your opinions, stop hiding behind a keyboard like a fucking pussy.
do it!

Innocent people? You are fine with causing suffering to innocent people? Do you realise how much like the Holocaust or Rape of Nanking this is?

So you're telling me that because they have been abused, then they will think it's just to deport anyone who shares the same genetics as their abuser? Why does their opinion matter more? Because they have been abused?
Is justice whatever the victim wants? How do you know that?

I don't defend people who hide crimes to avoid offense.

Why are they more "your people" than those with the same hair colour? If anything, your own sex are more "your people" than your race. Also, why must we use a "natural" (actually socially constructed but you think it's natural) way of deciding who belongs to what group? Why is that better than a group based on voluntary participation, like citizenship?

If they are not breaking any laws, what is the problem with these "foreigners"? And if they are breaking laws, so what? Deal with them like you deal with other law breakers. I don't really understand your point.

Also, who qualifies as a "foreigner"? What about those who share the same "race" (lol) as you, but were born and raised somewhere else (in fact a foreigner)? What about a black person born and raised in England (who is in fact not a foreigner)?

Why should people be treated differently in social relations depending on their genetics?

Enforcing the race-state, even how you want it, is not only unjust but almost impossible to enforce fairly.

Also,

I'm also British. My people are those with big feet. Do you have big feet? No? Time do deport you from Britain. People with small or normal sized feet have been hurting and raping my people for decades, and the police have been hiding it, so that they don't offend the normal sized feet people. My people are going to start a big-feet-state and deport or kill normal sized feet people. You think that's unjust? Ask the thousands of young girls who have been raped by normal and small footed people.

lol

Only because people continue to want unjust ethno-states. You're a self fulfilling prophecy m8.

Janey fuckin Mack. That explains a lot I suppose.

That's a good point, and from a scientific perspective having very closed off, closely related populations actually breeds diseases.

Not being Holla Forums here, but Jews in Europe for a very long time lived in closed off enclaves and married within them. Now, they have tons of super weird, very rare genetic diseases, diseases only found in Jews. Closing up populations and risking breeding is bad for the same reasons inbreeding is bad.

Because Europe theoretically offers the prospect of a decent life, whereas nations closer to their home country like Jordan (who have already taken in hundreds of thousands by the way) offers barely more than being shoved in overpopulated emergency camps.

Expansionism is different to wanting an ethno-state though. Israel is expansionist and that is why their neighbours have a hard time of it. If they weren't so desperate to expand and instead just wanted to live peacefully they wouldn't have to be at perpetual war.

Who is "our" in this, what country is "our"?

Oh, so war won't happen again? Well phew, glad we've got all the war parts of human existence out of they way.

I've tried to be patient with you, but you're spewing absolute SJW-tier bollocks, not just leftist opinion. You're just repeating your mantra.

No, that's humans. Everything causes conflict, you just have to choose how it happens and why.

And that right there is where I decided to discount you as a valid partner for debate.

So just being born in Britain is enough to be 'your people?' Despite the broad genetic variation in even the 'native" populations?

Just be honest and say you're a racist already and that you don't like the browns because that's what this is all really about.

really makes you think

But they want to expand precisely because its an ethno state. They believe that their ethnicity gives them divine right to expand.

Where?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
I could not imagine a more socially construced group than being with people thanks to the significance each member places on ancestry, language and culture. In fact, ethnicity groupings are exactly the same as if some miners got together because the family of each had a history of working mines.

Its existence is not socially construced, but the significance of it most certainly is. I was referring more to race (which is a socially construced system of categorisation) but in fact it's the same with ethnicity.

You can't socially construct the fact that people have shared history. But your significance of that, rather than the significance of hair colour or foot size, is socially constructed.

No, it's not about being born in Britain. It's about being a Briton, being native. I want the best for them. I don't want the worst for other races though, I'd quite like to see them all have their only place in the world why they live happy, but I do not believe multiple races can get along well inside one country.

Most everyone here has a different opinion to me and I've got along with them perfectly fine so far, because they are being decent people for the most part. You, on the other hand, are not.

That right there is what makes them retarded. They want to expand because they're delusional to the point of thinking they are some special snowflakes who should have everything the look at. I think a distinction should be made between being an ethno-state and being a greedy cunt of a country.

What does that have anything to do with social cycle theory?

The bit where you said ethnicity is socially constructed.

Race isn't socially constructed either. If it was, scientists wouldn't be able to sample our DNA and tell us where we originate.

This is the SJW-tier bullshit I was talking about. Painting something as socially constructed when it's not.

I'm sorry, the United States. They have one of the most powerful lobby's in our government.

In fact, this is already empirically verified by looking at current-day Europe. You'll see tensions between Walloon and Flemish Belgians, Northern and Southern Italians, Corsican and Metropolitan Frenchmen — and more famously between Catholic and Protestant Irishmen who, lest we forget, spent the better part of the '70s blowing each other up. Or just look at how the situation in Ukraine so quickly degenerated in separatist shit-flinging, too.

Before the actual rise of contemporary French nationalism in the latter half of the 19th century, it was frequent for people from a specific town to see people from another town as "foreigners" because a common national identity of "Frenchmen" did not yet exist. The natives of Nice would be screeching at seasonal workers from Marseille for example and it would often turn very ugly — contemporary "ethnic tensions" between white Europeans and Muslim immigrants are a joke in comparison.

Actually, if you want to get scientific, you should know of Lewtonin's Paradox:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

Idea is that we are the most genetically homogeneous species, and that its just as likely that a German and a Korean are more genetically similar than 2 Germans. Scientifically validated

What is the purpose of the ethno-state? What good does it do?

Ah, okay. Same here in the UK. In fact, just the other day it came out that Israeli diplomats are trying to "take down" British politicians that don't like Israel. I hope Israel's wall falls down.

Ideally creates a safer, more unified country. Which is what I came here to debate, so people could punch holes in my ideas.

Right I'm off lads. Got shit to do and whatnot. To those of you who argued decently with me, thankyou. To those of you who argued like a five year old hearing mummy say "no", go fuck yourselves, sometimes people believe differently than you and treating them like shit is not the way to get anything done.

Have a good day boyyos.

So what does "native" mean?

Your stupid country is nothing but a mixture of different races and has been for millennia , or are you going with the "everybody in Europe is 'white'" bullshit?

Then what's homogeneous about them?

It protects his feels and shields him from having to deal with reality.

They're white like him

That's what I figured, I pointed out earlier having closed off, very homogeneous populations breeds diseases, and got no rebuttal.

Definitely a case of "muh race"

All the economic stuff gets ignored too. It's just a dumb faggot that feels insecure around Hadji and thinks that shutting the door is going to keep capitalism from raping him.

Its a small price to pay for world peace.

Can left/pol/ not accept that there may be more than one issue in the world? Sure, capitalism ashit. But so is Islam. There is zero point working to a better world just to hand it to the mohammedans as soon as they're the global majority.

...

Religion doesn't matter and would matter even less if the US wasn't propping up the Sauds.

"Religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth."
— Marx, 1842

Islam (just like any other religion) is not some sort of eternal essence drifting through the ages, it is a historically-determined phenomenon whose content is constantly mutating. You can't come to a genuine understanding of what "Islam" means in our era without a proper understanding of how capitalism and imperialism shaped it into its current form.

You do realize that Islamic terrorism is largely a product of the '80s, right?

modern islam was shaped by capitalist imperialistic interventions you uneducated tit

Personally I'm of the opinion that it's easier to turn a ethno-state to communism because it's harder to distract people away from class consciousness to ethnic strife, so I'm all for them in that respect.

...

Holy shit nigga, do we actually have to spell it out for you?

Many of these declared ethnostates go expansionist, though. It tends to be part and parcel of what they are. You can say it doesn't have to be, but you can't deny the history. Once they purge the internal enemy, they go after external ones, to "unify our people". Things generally go downhill for them after that. If it doesn't get to that point, it's probably because the international community stepped in and prevented them from purging the internal enemy.

It's one thing to have strict entry requirements, and even stricter long-stay requirements. Lots of nations have those. It's another thing entirely to say that the nation is for this ethnicity only, and that everyone who isn't of this ethnicity has to either throw away their entire career/business/family or die.

I don't like states because they're top down hierarchies.

state-based culture destroys genuine organic cultural formation

Imagine a world without cultural marxism

fallacy disproved years ago. So sick of seeing it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy

So, 1950s USA? But it had so many problems…

Also, why do you think Germans and Koreans can't share bone marrow? Again, this is a fallacy.

content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

Nation states are trash. We need federal pan-continental unions that later can develop into single world government.

Try not to skim through the kikeipedia article next time, low-IQ nazbol.

woah i didn't know families were made up of different races too

(1/2)
Alright. Let us begin by roughly stating what nationalism is. Nationalism (correct me if you think this definition is insufficient) stems from the idea that that which is available to a nation belongs to its members, correct. And in the case of ethno-nationalism, those members would be those who are deemed ethnically a part of the nation.

From this knowledge, we may begin to draw conclusions about what nationalism means in practice. It's clear that such a belief will often lead this nationstate into conflict with other nations and other peoples. That which is available to any given nation may often come at the expense of others. Even in the case of nationalism's appeals to workers you can see this dynamic at play. The nationalist may tell the workers for example in one country that they can raise their wages and employment by restricting immigration from other countries. Thus gains by the workers in one country through nationalism will come at the expense of workers elsewhere. We must also keep in mind that these gains will only be short-term as capitalists who are forced to pay higher wages for less qualified workers will eventually cut back production. We may also examine other nationalist principles and see that this conflict is the natural conclusion, such as the nationalist expansion of borders (see Lebensraum in Germany). Once again, the rationale goes "this land is available to the nation and thus belongs to it." In this sense, there appears to be a natural instability to nationalism. When a nation makes gains at the expense of other nations, other nations will retaliate. This is as much the case when the nation directly attacks as when the nation simply raises tariffs, other nations will retaliate, somehow. Other nations will try to prevent the nation from benefiting from these measures at their expense, by raising tariffs of their own or some other measure. The nationalists in question, have one of two options when nations retaliate. They can either deescalate the conflict, as cooperation with nations will be more convenient for them than both nations being equally uncooperative with one another. Or the nation may continue to try to gain at the other nation's expense by escalating the conflict. Either it eventually fades away into neoliberalism, or the ethnostate destroys itself in conflict with other nations.

Let us consider now the further implications of nationalism.

Economics actually plays an important role in such a topic. A nation must have boarders, an army to enforce these borders, and perhaps an internal police force to protect itself within these boarders. An enforced boarder, an army, and police all cost money to maintain, but produce no such revenue on their own. This revenue must somehow come from those who do produce things (Perhaps an army could sustain itself by constantly looting in war but once again instability would be an issue there. other nations would likely unite against this nation). More likely, the army, police and other state apparatuses will sustain themselves by the labor of the workers either directly by taxing them or indirectly by taxing the capitalists who have already taken surplus value from the workers if we were to presuppose a capitalist economy. However, let us for a moment consider whether or not this exploitative power relation is a necessary consequence of the nation.

(2/2)
Now Let us consider an economy in which workers own the full product of their labor and goods are no longer scarce (in the sense that the worker's personal needs are taken care of) so workers no longer have to engage in quid-pro-quo exchange (which is itself unlikely as no nation today could be entirely self-sufficient and still avoid the problem of scarcity, but let's just assume that's not the case). The workers could then support the army voluntarily with the products of their labor like any other members of this society. But when the workers' nation must coexist with other nations, there arises a problem: the nations surrounding it will have an interest in invading. They will likely exploit their workers further until they can fund an army which would greatly overpower that of the workers' nation. The army and state of the workers' nation, with this in mind, would have an interest in trying to continue trying to strengthen the nation against invaders. While their personal needs are satisfied (the whole of the army maybe clothed, fed, properly housed, etc) and those needs are finite, a private need arises from an arms race which is itself infinite. The state has an interest in exploiting the workers wherever it can and as much as it can in order to survive. We arrive at something that looks a lot like state-capitalism through the competition of nations.

Thus there is an economic limit to the nation itself. You cannot have socialism in one country. In order for there to be a nation, there must be an economy based on workers' exploitation.

Nationalism itself serves an important role in perpetuating capitalism, by bringing the disenfranchised workers back into the fold when they have become unemployed, angry and disillusioned in large numbers. It redefines the conflict to one against those who don't belong to the nation. Makes economic problems into problems of foreigners. In a time of crisis, a nationalist party will redirect workers toward nationalism, bringing them back under the boot capitalism. Then one way or another, nationalism collapses into liberalism again

That's just defense of the fallacy. Edwards destroyed Lewontin.

t. irrelevant virgin non-geneticist on Holla Forums

at least you didn't blame the jews for everything contradicting your opinion this time, you're improving

Literally what? How is this even a thing?

Edwards is a geneticist you dumbass.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._W._F._Edwards

Behead those who insult the revolutionary work of Lewhontin!