-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ethnostate: How would it be created?
- Thread starter mr2xxx
- Start date
luigimario
Banned
Forced repatriation, or just making life so bad for minorities that you will just want to leave...
TrainedRage
Banned
I think he would rather have the people who want to be part of the ethno state be the ones to move to a new place. He has done videos on the topic. It's an interesting thought experiment IMO wouldn't work in practice. At least in America.
TheShadowLord
Member
I think he has said the same exact opposite in the vice interview or maybe it was the cnn one. Even ben shapiro who isn't an alt right had something like this in regards to Palestines.
Sounds peaceful enough. Reminds me Craig Cobb trying to create his own white nationalist city in North Dakota. Funny enough his own people turned on him once his DNA tests revealed he was 14% sub-Saharan African. Wonder if they would do DNA tests to keep the bloodline "pure".
Technically a bunch of wealthy people could attempt to purchase an island from some country and declare their independence as an ethnostate.
TrainedRage
Banned
That's a point of contention people bring up to Spencer. His rebuttal is something along the lines of, if you look white, and share the same culture and values then you're ok.
Does that mean Jews are welcome? Because it seems a lot of those folk will not accept Jews even if they are as hateful as them.
TrainedRage
Banned
I'm not sure. I think he would use the cultural differences as a way to keep them out of his ethnostate. He does not like Jews and has publicly said as much.
What if people "white up"?
What if I get a heavy tan, is there a colour chart, the Dulux chart for entry into Richard Spencer's utopia of pasty ginger people?
llien
Banned
98.5% of Japan say hi.
synchronicity
Member
I'm sure he's just for mandated and intense interracial breeding until we all become one race. His problem solved. 
ar0s
Member
All the forced repatriation after WW2 could easily be done again today. It would just take longer. You would just have to use the same brutal tactics of killing anyone who refused to go. Look how easily the Zionists overran Palestine in 1948. It will never happen though. If you want a white-ish state then Eastern Europe is your only hope.
Frozen Bagel
Neo Member
Or you could drag the standards of whiteness down, or move it in a completely new direction.
luigimario
Banned
Explains japan's rapidly aging population. Even japan will need to open its borders to its western neighbours, like china, korea, south east asia, malaysia, indonesia etc...98.5% of Japan say hi.
SiteSeer
Member
we're talking about the richard spencer alt right racist 'one race' ethnostate. japan still allows non-asian immigration however minuscule. they don't go around killing and/or deporting blacks and whites out of their country.98.5% of Japan say hi.
mustardman
Banned
Top threads on the off topic have me feeling enlightened these days.
LegendOfKage
Member
Speaking as someone who hates identity politics, I think it looks stupid enough coming from the far left, but the far right just takes it to a whole new level of dumb. I'm not sure what "white culture and values" would be, anyway. And who would decide if you look white enough, or your white culture and values are up to par?
Let's take movies. Would someone be allowed to like 48 Hours? Lethal Weapon? Beverley Hills Cop? As I'm typing this, I kind of had the realization that if someone wants to move to a remote island to get away from the blacks and the Jews, they'd probably fit right in regardless of their taste in film.
But I can also imagine a situation where any and all brushes with non-white culture are called out as heresy, as citizens spend their time engaged in a form of far-right virtue signaling, calling out their neighbors for listening to Eminem, or owning a Denzel Washington movie.
And honestly, if super racist idiots want to move to an island somewhere, why aren't we doing more to encourage this?
I mean didn't this not describe America for the longest time? There's your study right there no? hundreds of years of data.
appaws
Banned
98.5% of Japan say hi.
And others. For instance most of Eastern Europe can be described as ethnostates. I don't think that it is necessarily a good or bad thing. There is nothing wrong with Japan or Hungary wanting to maintain themselves similarly to their historical identity. As an outsider I don't feel comfortable passing a moral judgment on them for it.
I mean, let's admit certain realities, for example the work of Robert Putnam which shows people as happier and likelier to cultivate more social capital when located in a community made up of their own race/ethnicity. It's an ultimate thought crime these days, and I would have banned from old-GAF for mentioning it....but Putnam was a Harvard liberal who was very dismayed by his own findings. They are still true though.
On a macro scale though, the United States is a diverse polity, which will remain a patchwork of different ethno-religious groups into the foreseeable future. Some sort of civic nationalism, with equality before the law, is really the best way to maintain what we have built. But if identity politics cannot be arrested at some point, there is going to be a breakup.
King of Foxes
Banned
But thats based on American understanding, my country Latvia is im sure 99.9% white (I don't think i even saw a real life black person until I was in my 20's) but Russians are around 25% of our population.
Unlike the west, white skin doesn't equal to all "whites" being the same. Culture counts
Gun Animal
Member
Same way as Israel, the Jewish ethnostate.
If your understanding of a premise makes the premise seem absurd, maybe your understanding is mistaken? Just a thought.
I have seen plenty of arguments on that side of twitter over what non-native percentile is tolerable with regard to social cohesion, ethnic continuity, et cetera. (Note that Japan is more than 99% Japanese) I have never seen any serious argument, anywhere, in real life or online in any format whatsoever, over whether or not to commit genocide.
Also note that an Ethnostate is defined by policy, not present demographics per se. A state could hypothetically be a white ethnostate with not a single white present, so long as the law of that state were designed to sustain or increase the white population and serve it's interest, successful or not. Perish the thought!
edit: I think we can all agree, with the exception of maybe one user whose handle shall not be mentioned, that White Identity is somewhat incoherent and now exists as an anti-identity adopted mostly by Euro-Diaspora in the (Anglophonic) New World for lack of anything else, and as a political other by rent-seekers of all swarthy types. It does not describe a race (in any physical sense, as it is not entirely synonymous with Caucasian) or an ethnicity (in any anthropological or genetic sense). At best it is an aesthetic gradient starting with a Germanic/Hyperborean phenotype and trailing off somewhere in the Mediterranean. I'm quite fond of the term Amerikaner in reference to the kind of thing that I am (Descendants of Anglo-Saxon Settlers in North America), borrowed from Afrikaner, but no luck in making it catch on. The same can be said for attempts to rebrand as "European", "Culturally Christian", "Western" and so on. The same people who decry "Whiteness" work very hard to ensure that it sticks to us. One could ponder as to why.
If your understanding of a premise makes the premise seem absurd, maybe your understanding is mistaken? Just a thought.
I have seen plenty of arguments on that side of twitter over what non-native percentile is tolerable with regard to social cohesion, ethnic continuity, et cetera. (Note that Japan is more than 99% Japanese) I have never seen any serious argument, anywhere, in real life or online in any format whatsoever, over whether or not to commit genocide.
Also note that an Ethnostate is defined by policy, not present demographics per se. A state could hypothetically be a white ethnostate with not a single white present, so long as the law of that state were designed to sustain or increase the white population and serve it's interest, successful or not. Perish the thought!
edit: I think we can all agree, with the exception of maybe one user whose handle shall not be mentioned, that White Identity is somewhat incoherent and now exists as an anti-identity adopted mostly by Euro-Diaspora in the (Anglophonic) New World for lack of anything else, and as a political other by rent-seekers of all swarthy types. It does not describe a race (in any physical sense, as it is not entirely synonymous with Caucasian) or an ethnicity (in any anthropological or genetic sense). At best it is an aesthetic gradient starting with a Germanic/Hyperborean phenotype and trailing off somewhere in the Mediterranean. I'm quite fond of the term Amerikaner in reference to the kind of thing that I am (Descendants of Anglo-Saxon Settlers in North America), borrowed from Afrikaner, but no luck in making it catch on. The same can be said for attempts to rebrand as "European", "Culturally Christian", "Western" and so on. The same people who decry "Whiteness" work very hard to ensure that it sticks to us. One could ponder as to why.
Last edited:
i_am_ben
running_here_and_there
What are you gonna do with all the minorities? form a westbank or gaza strip?
Gun Animal
Member
The Indian reservations worked out pretty well (better than palestine (or perhaps only more quiet))
I lean very strongly towards the balkanization model and find the "won't cede an inch of land" guys to be distasteful and, also, possibly unrelated, they tend to have an intense aroma. Best avoid.
This is my personal favorite hypothetical, but there are many (many, many...) others:
An aside: It has been noted before that if the Confederacy had been left to it's business, it would have ended up very much like Haiti, with the slave-owners (and anyone who looked like 'em) either being killed en masse or fleeing into the arms of Yankees. Considering how many men died in the Civil War, I'm not sure which scenario would have been better in the end. Interesting nonetheless.
Last edited:
SiteSeer
Member
so far as richard spencers ethnostate is concerned there is no misunderstanding. im trying to stay on topic here. what i mean is his brand of ethnostate could not exist on the scale of a country like japan or israel, or whatever eastern european country.
Last edited:
I can see that, though I'd say right after the Civil War there was a lot of killing of people and burning down of whole communities constantly. I think a major issue was black people were stripped of their identity and weren't paid so it's like…where could they flee to ya know?
Realistically if America wanted to be an ethnostate they'd have to completely change how the country is ran, especially when it comes to their military. As an example, they destabilized an entire region of the world (and we helped) which means the people of that region are going to flee to other places, one of them being…America lol.
Gun Animal
Member
Spencer actually avoids the term Ethnostate, he is very much a Federalist and espouses the idea of a Pan-European Empire. This being my main point of contention with him!
As for how Spencer's vision of a Pan-European empire could be realized, some steps:
1. Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia join the E.U. (If this doesn't make sense to you, remember that "European" does not just refer to a geographical area, but also a "Race"/Set of Phenotypic Traits/Metaculture.)
2. The E.U. makes it it's official policy to represent Europoid-Phenotype people and their interests, especially with regard to demographics and genetic/cultural continuity.
Please note that this would qualify in the formal sense regardless of actual results.
Let me reiterate that I am against this model as well as any form of Imperialism/Federalism. I am merely answering your question as to how it could be achieved.
edit: To illustrate my point further, consider that a Communist State is not a state which has achieved Communism, else there would never have been any Communist State anywhere, but a State who's policies and mission statement reflect the general ideals of Communism.
Last edited:
SiteSeer
Member
at first look it sounds kind of benign, even beneficial to certain people but at second thought becomes awfully authoritarian. who gets to decide these interests? what interests exactly? what kind of force are you going to use to keep discipline? are there room for individuals? is membership mandatory? you don't have to answer these questions, i'm just thinking out loud. even as a thought experiment there are more questions than answers.
Gun Animal
Member
You could say this of virtually any ideology, policy, political movement, et cetera, even (especially) those espousing liberty and individuality. And perhaps you should! Would the world were so skeptical of good ideas, we might avoid the odd slaughter.
Perhaps even King Charles I may have kept his head!
The Supreme Chancellor of Greater Evropa, Sir Richard Spencer! Hah, I kid.
If I had to guess: a total prohibition on non-European immigration (defined genetically or aesthetically), Apartheid, and drastic economic reforms aimed at increasing the birthrate and salvaging the environment, with the ultimate goal of ensuring that the people inhabiting Europe ten thousand years from now look very similar to those inhabiting it several hundred years ago.
How has any law in human history been enforced? What is a law that is not ultimately enforced with violence?
A polite suggestion!
Surely the last thing we need now is more individualism. The intense alienation brought on by Industrial Society is what most fringe Right-Wing ideologies aim to address these days, so I would think not.
Ask a Confederate if Federal membership is mandatory. Oops, you can't, they're all dead! Alternatively...
"Heh, we can secede any time we want to..." says the increasingly nervous Texan.
I don't mind, I've asked and been asked all of these questions before. I wouldn't currently consider myself Alt-Right (currently I am most drawn to Anarcho-Primitivism/Deep-Ecology/Eco-Fascism as well as the more esoteric stuff) but I like to think I'm well-versed in the dialectics of it.
lvl8
Member
Chairman Tickles
Banned
All polities are indeed artificial, but formed over long periods of time. If you force it on a large scale you're going to run into some serious problems. This works both ways, whether you quickly aspire to brute force an ethnically homogenous state or a diverse state.
Japan, Korea (north-south divide is purely the result of superpower geopolitics), and to a lesser extent China (92% of the populace deems themselves homogenous) work because they formed over many millennia. An ethno-cultural monopoly was established, and all other groups were vanquished from being relevant to the state-wide sociopolitical apparatus (eg Ainu in Japan, many groups in China)
On the other hand the USA is a central example of being a melting pot on a large scale, and even after 400 years it's in a fairly divided situation and polarization on pan-ethnic grounds continues to grow. We see similar results in other post-colonial states with significant minorities and in states that are receiving a large influx of migrants from very different areas.
On a small scale, maybe it is possible.
People like Spencer aren't ultra-nationalists, his ideas are unworkable within an established framework. He doesn't care about established countries. Most ultra-nationalists and some ethno-nationalists are dangerous because they seek to change the status quo within an established polity usually at the expense or to the benefit of a specific cultural or ethnic group. Most Ethnic Nationalists want to secede and form a new state on empty land, if possible. And civic nationalists-well they're in charge and not having much luck managing growing polarization and dissent.
A blatant example of ongoing ethno-nationalism in practice on a medium-scale is Israel. Unfortunately it occurred on occupied land. The results are thus predictable. The group that lost the fight for territory is being cleansed as we speak.
Japan, Korea (north-south divide is purely the result of superpower geopolitics), and to a lesser extent China (92% of the populace deems themselves homogenous) work because they formed over many millennia. An ethno-cultural monopoly was established, and all other groups were vanquished from being relevant to the state-wide sociopolitical apparatus (eg Ainu in Japan, many groups in China)
On the other hand the USA is a central example of being a melting pot on a large scale, and even after 400 years it's in a fairly divided situation and polarization on pan-ethnic grounds continues to grow. We see similar results in other post-colonial states with significant minorities and in states that are receiving a large influx of migrants from very different areas.
On a small scale, maybe it is possible.
People like Spencer aren't ultra-nationalists, his ideas are unworkable within an established framework. He doesn't care about established countries. Most ultra-nationalists and some ethno-nationalists are dangerous because they seek to change the status quo within an established polity usually at the expense or to the benefit of a specific cultural or ethnic group. Most Ethnic Nationalists want to secede and form a new state on empty land, if possible. And civic nationalists-well they're in charge and not having much luck managing growing polarization and dissent.
A blatant example of ongoing ethno-nationalism in practice on a medium-scale is Israel. Unfortunately it occurred on occupied land. The results are thus predictable. The group that lost the fight for territory is being cleansed as we speak.
Last edited:
appaws
Banned
Very interesting read. I wonder if the idea will gain more and more traction as the government continues to target white farmers, as we have seen in the news lately.
Is there any empty land in the world?
ar0s
Member
Chairman Tickles
Banned
Japan has 2.5 million foreigners living and working there on a permanent basis, usually on residency visas. However they will never be seen as 'Japanese' by the Japanese and will never be allowed to form independent communities within Japan-unless they're part of the US military on Us military bases, there the Japanese have no choice. Imperialism is a harsh mistress.
Most of it is unoccupied. See black areas devoid of lights.
Floating cities anyone?
However it is hard to start a set of towns or cities from scratch, it takes pre-existing infrastructure and connections to the outside world. So option no.2 is to find a place that is already racially homogeneous, and build up from there. I don't care for this by the way, to me an ethno-state is a stupid concept, unless it is done in space. There needs to be real physical distance between radical political constructs, or there will be constant war.
I used to be a globalist, but then I realized if the globe is run by a crappy regime or if it usurped by one, this globalism will suck. Note that by crappy I mean technologically inefficient and stagnant. So now I'm a civic Imperialist. Empires rise and fall, so even if a bad one comes along, plenty of opportunities to form new ones that can do great things. Globalism is forever. If an imperial authority was close to conquering the entire planet, I would oppose it for this reason.
By definition imperialists accept all races and cultures into their over-lordship to varying degrees of incorporation based on merit. I believe that anybody of any race, gender or religion can form part of the Imperial authority if they prove their worth. I would solve crime and social/dissent problems with brute military force and mass executions. I'd start by annexing all nearby ethno-states because they would be small and ripe for the taking.
But this is all petty and irrelevant long-term. Until we get off this rock, our collective fate is sealed by something as simple as a stray iron-rich outer-belt object no larger than 500m in diameter. (i.e extinction is only a matter of when, not if).
Most of it is unoccupied. See black areas devoid of lights.
Floating cities anyone?
However it is hard to start a set of towns or cities from scratch, it takes pre-existing infrastructure and connections to the outside world. So option no.2 is to find a place that is already racially homogeneous, and build up from there. I don't care for this by the way, to me an ethno-state is a stupid concept, unless it is done in space. There needs to be real physical distance between radical political constructs, or there will be constant war.
I used to be a globalist, but then I realized if the globe is run by a crappy regime or if it usurped by one, this globalism will suck. Note that by crappy I mean technologically inefficient and stagnant. So now I'm a civic Imperialist. Empires rise and fall, so even if a bad one comes along, plenty of opportunities to form new ones that can do great things. Globalism is forever. If an imperial authority was close to conquering the entire planet, I would oppose it for this reason.
By definition imperialists accept all races and cultures into their over-lordship to varying degrees of incorporation based on merit. I believe that anybody of any race, gender or religion can form part of the Imperial authority if they prove their worth. I would solve crime and social/dissent problems with brute military force and mass executions. I'd start by annexing all nearby ethno-states because they would be small and ripe for the taking.
But this is all petty and irrelevant long-term. Until we get off this rock, our collective fate is sealed by something as simple as a stray iron-rich outer-belt object no larger than 500m in diameter. (i.e extinction is only a matter of when, not if).
Last edited:
ar0s
Member
That's not true - just because the land is dark on that image does not mean it is unoccupied. It just means it is not a developed area. Africa certainly isn't empty apart from those few areas.
Gormless Noodle
Member
Yeah, not a single chance in hell there wouldn't be violence if these people had their way. They generally fluff it up into something more morally palatable (like with incentives and other BS), but the end result is always the same. There's no version of any US ethnostate where enormous amounts of violence don't precede it's creation.
infinitys_7th
Member
I morally disagree with the notion of splitting people up based on cosmetic differences, so the ethnostate is a nonstarter.
What I think its supporters are trying to capture are the of shared ideology, which they correlate necessarily to shared ethnicity. They believe all Asians will tend to believe a certain way, all black people will tend to believe a certain way, etc. which is demonstrably untrue as people move outside their cultural bubbles. The moderate American Muslim population is a testament to this.
Rather than an ethnostate, I would support the "idea state", which is rather like what the US was designed to be. Have small states (or at this point, maybe counties) where like-minded people are able to control themselves as they see fit, with a centralized government providing bare-minimum infrastructure (defense, solving and preventing disputes between idea states, allowing migration between idea states, etc.).
So you might have a Libertarian state/county next to a Communist state/county next to Democratic Socialist state/county next to. . .
And the centralized government would just prevent the counties from invading each other.
People will resonate with different ideas, and most of the conflict in the world comes from disagreements between these ideas, so if you allow people to join a region where they are free to practice what they want alongside similar people a lot of conflict would vanish. I'm very much a moral relativist outside of opposing the use of force to impose one's belief on another, so this seems like the most moral system to me.
What I think its supporters are trying to capture are the of shared ideology, which they correlate necessarily to shared ethnicity. They believe all Asians will tend to believe a certain way, all black people will tend to believe a certain way, etc. which is demonstrably untrue as people move outside their cultural bubbles. The moderate American Muslim population is a testament to this.
Rather than an ethnostate, I would support the "idea state", which is rather like what the US was designed to be. Have small states (or at this point, maybe counties) where like-minded people are able to control themselves as they see fit, with a centralized government providing bare-minimum infrastructure (defense, solving and preventing disputes between idea states, allowing migration between idea states, etc.).
So you might have a Libertarian state/county next to a Communist state/county next to Democratic Socialist state/county next to. . .
And the centralized government would just prevent the counties from invading each other.
People will resonate with different ideas, and most of the conflict in the world comes from disagreements between these ideas, so if you allow people to join a region where they are free to practice what they want alongside similar people a lot of conflict would vanish. I'm very much a moral relativist outside of opposing the use of force to impose one's belief on another, so this seems like the most moral system to me.
Last edited:
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
What cultural differences? Religion? Jews are pretty white, and a lot of them aren't religious at all. There's no overarching logic that will allow something like an ethnostate to exist, because their hate is irrational. Trying to build a society on irrational hate and exclusions that make no sense is a sure way to fail.
Gun Animal
Member
Orania is great, ironically for all the persecution of boers South Africa's constitution protects the right to self-determination, more important than any other right IMO.
If you tried something like Orania in the U.S. it would go down like Waco. Self-Determination is incompatible with Imperialisn! This is just one example of why the Federal Government has to be dismantled before any change for the better can happen within the states.
dum dum
Yes, Politics is violence. The American Gov't kills people every day over matters as trivial as recreational drugs. A law is a threat to kill, always. Why don't you go plant trees or something?
If you tried something like Orania in the U.S. it would go down like Waco. Self-Determination is incompatible with Imperialisn! This is just one example of why the Federal Government has to be dismantled before any change for the better can happen within the states.
dum dum
Yes, Politics is violence. The American Gov't kills people every day over matters as trivial as recreational drugs. A law is a threat to kill, always. Why don't you go plant trees or something?
Last edited:
Chairman Tickles
Banned
It's mostly the case. Much of North America, south America and Asia is empty. And interesting you bring up Africa. The continent is plagued by conflict, because arbitrary borders were drawn across multiple Tribal lines. A good candidate for ethno-state experimentation by redrawing borders based on tribes.
Last edited:
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
Lol. For who?
cryptoadam
Banned
Well Israel isn't an ethno state though since more than half of its population is made up of the Jews the Arabs kicked out of their country. And about 20% or so isn't Jewish either.
We could use Saudi Arabia or Iran as examples of "ethno states" since they are pretty close to 100% Muslim. Lets find out what they did to get rid of all their non muslim populations.
Kotzen Ducha
Banned
It can't happen
Not only are people who think like Spencer in such an inconsequential minority, but the mechanisms by which to create this simply aren't in place.
Although my sister who watches 'The Handmaid's Tale' think it's going to happen any second. :\
Not only are people who think like Spencer in such an inconsequential minority, but the mechanisms by which to create this simply aren't in place.
Although my sister who watches 'The Handmaid's Tale' think it's going to happen any second. :\
Similar threads
- Poll