Would you prefer a world composed wholly of 100% racially pure socialist ethno-states or an internationalist...

Would you prefer a world composed wholly of 100% racially pure socialist ethno-states or an internationalist neo-liberal world order?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vFPAe1Rm110
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Socialist ethno-states.

With socialism there wouldn't be an economic ground to fuel racialist ideas of supremacy and as such it would wither away by itself as people travel and intermarry.

you're just offering me 2 types of capitalism

Definitely the ethno-state. Racial purity has nothing to do with anti-semitism or racism and stuff like that. It implies that each people has a state of their own, where they can thrive. This is getting suspiciously close to Zionism so I'm going to stop

Zionism wouldnt be so bad if it were not for the fact that they are genociding the native people of israel for their zionist state.

You understand that both are self-contradictions?

That is literally all Holla Forums wants.

We just want to be with our own people and be left the fuck alone.

maybe then pol should also want a stop to imperialism and global warming instead of denying/celebrating them

like many other have said, id rather have ethnostates with a socialist type economy than globalist capitalism because socialism will fix the racial problems to begin with.
The only problem is, how will you get to an enthnostate? is it by killing, imprisoning, or deporting/displacing millions or billions of people? If so, I can't support that method. The whole question is a moot point because the only way to even get ethnostates in the modern world is to kill or displace millions of people which is a crime if it ever did happen, which it probably wont.

checks out

...

This is the most retarded post on Holla Forums

wew lad

forget red pill, watch Varg and take the white pill youtube.com/watch?v=vFPAe1Rm110

I dont mine diversity and believe people should come and go as they please.

...

can't have socialism if there are states you dumb fuck

This is an entirely pointless, purely rhetorical question. This choice will never be present irl.

it's obvious that what was meant was "self-governing homogeneous communities", which "ethno-state" is a synonym for in normie discourse

I would like a revolution in both scenarios.

100% racially pure ethno-states are an impossibility for two reasons:

- ethnic traits are continuous, not discrete. This makes classifying them a largely futile exercise. If you go completely pedantic with it, each person is their own unique ethnicity

- the ability to play potato-head with ethnic traits through genetic engineering is already scientifically possible. It will only get easier and if you think the ability to change your traits is going to lead to homogeneity, I have bad news for you.

At least an internationalist neo-liberal world order tries to manage the complexity through encouraging compatibility instead of throwing up its hands and saying 'fuck it'

...

the first option will just never ever happen no matter what the material conditions

Not necessarily "ethno-states", but more like culture-states.
I don't believe in the "race is culture" meme that Holla Forumstards push, but shoving your liberal bullshit down traditional people's throats is not my thing

I want to live in a world where OP isn't a fag

really now?

I never said it did a good job, only that an attempt was made

...

I have to agree with the christfag on this one