Look, if people want to start their own ethnostate, that’s totally fine. If they find a plot of land, are able to claim it as a new state, and be recognized by other sovereign nations without having to displace any sort of indigenous populations or perform any sort of ethnic cleansing. Then they totally can.

Let’s start with a few definitions before we get down and dirty, these aren’t official, they’re just sort of what I’m using as the terms to describe things herein.

An Ethnostate is defined as– a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group in homogeneity. (meaning virtually all of the citizens are basically of the same culture and values, including religious values). Typically the term ethnostate refers to a singular ethnicity, and the rough percentage of that ethnicity usually needs to be above 90% of the total population (this is a made up percentage). It’s also worth pointing out that tourism is a thing, and ethnostates typically allow tourism but not ‘culture mixing without ethnic conversion/assimilation’ or ‘citizenship’ (which is often determined mainly by Jus Sanguinis, by blood).

e.g. USA isn’t an ethnostate because it’s literally a melting pot of more than 10 core ethnicities and follows citizenship by place of birth (Jus Soli) rather than blood. Israel isn’t technically an ethnostate, because more than 20% is non Jewish (it’s a bit more nuanced sense they have a state-religion and that’s culture and ethnicity based).

i.e. some examples of Ethnostates, may include North Korea, Japan (with the exception of religious values), Bhutan, Iceland, Armenia. It’s to note that these nations follow either a full or partial Jus Sanguinis, meaning they grant citizenship due to bloodlines rather than other factors.

Ethno-states can have tiered citizens, based on the closeness of the ethnic origins to the state sanctioned ethnicity.

A non-ethnostate is a state that isn’t exclusively predominantly one ethnicity nor do they have laws that provide favoritism, sanctions, or discrimination towards a particular caste of people based on ethnicity.

i.e. Because China is targeting muslims and forcing conversion, they’re technically ethnic cleansing thus they have elements of an ethnostate. Because Israel has specific laws enshrined favoring a specific ethnicity, they’re technically have elements of an ethnostate.

e.g. The USA has many civil right laws and is itself a melting pot meaning that it’s well qualified to be a non-ethnostate. Arguably the racism here is systemic and not in your face, unlike literally every other nation in the world. Arguably the least Ethnostate in today’s age.

An Ethnicity is defined as- a person’s identity with or membership in a particular cultural, national, or racial group. This can also include religion, tradition, language, culture, and skin color (because skin color isn’t technically a race, and genetically it’s not a race). For instance a ‘white’ ethnostate is as retarded as a ‘black ethnostate’ because skin color by itself isn’t a culture, tradition, or genetically specific enough to be it’s own thing. (The easiest way to prove what I just stated is to call a white nationalist a Jew, or a orthodox Jew a white person).

The problem is two fold;

1. when you try to make an Ethnostate out of a state that wasn’t an ethnostate. Conversion.
2. Taking more land or resorting to economic barbarism to further the ethnostate. Expansion.

As it turns out, there is no ethical way to convert or expand an ethnostate.

Conversion;

Well, in order to convert a non-ethnostate into an ethnostate, you have to perform a genocide which is overall bad. Can’t be turn a regular state into an ethnostate without ethnic cleaning, whether you’re white washing, black facing, or pissing on it to be yellow.

You’d have to round up, send people to concentration camps, or deport them, which is viewed widely as a human rights violation, and thus would draw the Eire of most nations.

As it turns out, detaining people and human trafficking them to external places, or killing them, is bad.

Also, where the fuck would you send em? To their ancestral home countries? What if they’re mixxed race?

Obviously a lot of countries would not be happy with having a bunch of ‘return-to-sender’ humans in an influx of population, maybe Japan won’t care, but that’s an exception and not the majority.

These people likely won’t speak the tongue of the countries that are sent to, thus exacerbating other issues on top of hate and sentiment that would spread against the ethnostate.

Ultimately if you encroach on human rights, you have to redefine ‘human’ and that definition is going to be tested in the chambers of war and conflict and revolution and rebellions and etc.

Expansion;

Barring the exception that if the ethnostate finds unclaimed land for expansion or creates new land from artificial islands. It will likely cause moral issues in expansion.

As with all the issues above, expanding the ethnostate requires to use violence or economic barbarism which is generally frowned upon in most civilized societies. It should not be perpetrated between free persons, and also that applies by extension and scale to nations.

Due to the inherent nature of an ethnostate being an ethnostate, it can’t reasonably expand without drawing the eire of other ethnicities. Meaning any conflict in expansion would cause international disaster. Any ethnicity is threatened by the expansion of an ethnostate, because by definition you can’t assimilate as equals to an ethnostate. The options are to surrender and be annexed, or wait for the inevitable further expansion and war that would naturally ensue.

Although, it was fucking wild that Germany and Japan were allies in World War 2. Germany believed themselves to be the supreme race with ubermensch, and Japan literally thought their emperor was god. Obviously they’d have to one day draw a line in the sand, because chances of them assimilating are slim (unless they did a political marriage and somehow adapted their beliefs to include eachother).

So the ethnostate can have a casus belli for expansion into other territories. But due to the inherent nature of an ethnostate being culturally and ideologically an ethnostate, EVERY other nation which is not the same ethnicity and culture, has their own justified casus belli to attack the ethnostate in retaliation.

Naturally, an ethnostate can’t expand, and if it does, it’s immoral, but also it would literally aggro the world because every other militant focused nation would love to have a just cause to attack another nation to plunder and pilfer and be deemed a hero on the global state.

Hitler done fucked up invading Poland after claiming an ethnostate. (Take notes modern day ethnostate nationalists, you should really pay attention). Maybe history would’ve been different had they not claimed an ethnostate or invaded Poland before they claimed themselves an ethnostate.

For you anime nerds, being an ethnostate and expanding is like proclaiming to the world that you’re the Demon Lord and your nation of Demons is attacking. Idk if you realize the gravity of an ethnostate attacking anything, but it literally opens up major criticisms that are a priori justified. It’s no longer a political issue, it’s an existential one. Every other nation is threatened when an Ethnostate expands. *COUGH*COUGH, looks at the middle east *COUGH*COUGH

Ethnostates expanding are equivalent (not equal) to nuclear weapons being used. It threatens the existence of everyone else.

Rationally, if an ethnostate expands successfully once, it’ll do it again until the entire world is an ethnostate. Idk about you, but I don’t want to be ruled by italians, Japanese, Chinese, or like Nigerians. Also, they would subjugate and likely treat all other ethnicities like trash and sub human.

So naturally, ethnostates would have to be euthanized the moment it bears its fangs.

Also side note;

Ethnostates are historically and statistically more inclined to be inbred in more and more generations. As it turns out, being of one ‘ethnicity’ makes you more prone to being inbred. It’s very prevalent in the islamic ethnostates, Japan, and it sure as hell prevalent in white supremacists in the south. I’m sure some mountain hippies are probably of the same ilk regardless of nation. Point is, ethnostates by definition, don’t have a lot of diversity genetically, so you get ‘purebred’ pure-breeds, and they end up being genetically deformed or retarded. Call it the luck of the draw or ‘policy in action’ because -well- you can blame the ethnostate.

Additionally, there’s a lot of countries that require mandatory military service. Typically from the state perspective, they don’t like armed citizenry. So the likelihood of a state giving a ‘stranger’ citizen or not, a gun or capabilities to weaponry, is dependent on policies that outsource the states’ critical thinking faculties to that of ethnic policies.

TLDR: An ethnostate isn’t going to give a non-state sanctioned ethnicity access or capabilities to militant supplies. They don’t want a challenge to the status quo. They typically won’t give immigrants and foreigners a chance for citizenship through military service (unlike the USA).

A few side tangent insults;

Anyone who wants to make USA an ethnostate is retarded. You can tell them, I said that. -Duke

They don’t comprehend that we are Jus Soli (Citizenship by birth on land) and are made up of immigrants historically mixing.

Additionally, these retards probably don’t even read the US constitution, that basically allows people to be all kinds of retarded cultures and ethnicities and whatnot. Freedom is a thing.

Now, it’s fair to say that we should limit corruption, foreign expenses, military expansion, throttle immigration, and do a bunch of other political action that would better posture the welfare of the nation and individual rights. There’s nothing wrong with being a nationalist wanting isolationist policies. There’s nothing wrong with wanting America or the US to succeed in general. State issues are still a people’s issue, regardless if the state is an ethnostate or not. Illegal immigration is still illegal and immoral per State’s perspective.

It’s also fair to say that; you want to be racist and keep your ethnicity clean. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone has a right to self-determination (regardless if the state doesn’t recognize that right) and the American ideal of the freedom of individuals to associate. No one ought to tell you who to fuck or mess with your genetics, that’s eugenics. Nothing wrong with preserving your ethnicity and values, like wise if someone threatened to ethnically cleanse you, it’s in your human right to defend yourself. (Just remember that if you decide to flip the script and try to ethnically cleanse someone else).

But to try to make the US an Ethnostate in this day and age is retarded. You’d have to do a lot of fucked up shit, as outlined above to make it happen, to include rewriting the US Constitution and making your own country or seceding. It’s not impossible, just retarded.

A tangent on ‘white’ and ‘black’ ethnicity

Before in the front matter above, I mentioned the Genetic variance and ability of skin color to not be an ethnicity. Genetics give way to Ethnicity, and Ethnicity gives way to culture, and culture gives way to laws and codified constructs that generate society. This is, of course, one of many perspectives.

I also want to advocate that the government and state and public pushing out racist policies of DEI or Affirmative action also endorse or push the narrative that the ‘white’ or ‘black’ or ‘asian’ ethnicity is a thing.

So, when you look at your Pocahontas White pasty skin politician claim to be native American to get into universities as a diversity hire to take advantage of racist policies, then yea, the ethnicity of ‘white’ becomes a thing because it’s enshrined in policy.

When corporations and political discourse on college campuses talk shit about ‘straight white men’, then of course the idea of ‘white’ as a race or ethnicity is enforced by the dialogue and conversation of retards.

White or black as skin color isn’t an ethnicity, but the state and science create data or statistics or reports and policies that essentially make ‘black’ and ‘white’ skin an ethnic category or group. Any racist worth their salt knows about crime statistics that ‘reinforce’ skin color as an ethnicity. The state thus creates the idea and affirmation that ‘skin color’ is ethnicity.

I mean, when you apply for college, you get an option like this;

Essentially when dominant institutions like education or private corporations in business reinforce policies to conflate ‘race’ with ‘ethnicity’ through means like the above. Actually reinforces the idea of ‘race’ as ‘ethnicity’ even though race isn’t an ethnicity.

Like you can’t have a white ethnostate if the only requirement is that you’re white. You have to have culture and other shit. Not saying ‘white’ or ‘black’ people don’t have culture, it’s just not uniform or broadly conspicuous to merely ‘skin color’. A white liberal with blue hair working in an abortion clinic doesn’t share the same culture as a white catholic working in finance. So skin color alone isn’t enough nor technically valid for an ethnostate.

So for you national ethnostate advocators, you have to accurately and concisely design religion and values and a core ethos to ‘ethnicity’ as well as culture to determine or define an ‘ethnostate’ of your wet dreams or whatever you want.

I think it’s retarded that people will agree that segregation is racist but fail to see that forced diversity and tokenism is racist.

In terms of Contemporary Politics

The not far right, Right, just wants law and order. They don’t want mass illegal immigrants or migration to destroy the social fabric of society without proper channels of assimilation to have shared values and language. Speak the common tongue and uphold the ideals of the US Constitution. That’s not a crazy idea.

The Right don’t want more crime and rapists if the state doesn’t uphold the law. It’s a reasonable take. They also don’t want racist policies like DEI or Affirmative action to discriminate against the population. Which is also reasonable seeing as those policies are disenfranchising ethnic ‘whites’ in USA.

Also, preferring illegal Mexicans over legal visa Indians is retarded. It goes against conservative values of the right. So unless they’re joking with the polls or trolling, then they’re retarded for thinking ~1 million H1-B visa holders are a bigger problem than ~10+ million illegal immigrants.

Arguably if the Left was understanding, they’d see that there is an ethnic cleansing of ‘whites’ in the West, and they would virtue signal to defend them. But I guess they’re too short sighted to see that.

The Left wants multiculturalism and diversity as a strength. In the USA, that’s part of the constitution and creed. That’s reasonable to defend and protect as an ideology. The whole ‘give me your tired, hungry and poor’ of Ellis island didn’t stop at Irish or Italian refugees.

The Right also wants Nationalism. And the Left is retarded thinking that nationalism means ‘Nazi’. Nationalism and culture isn’t mutually inclusive. You can have multiculturalism with a nationalistic angle. Being pro-American is doing both of that. What you can’t have -thought, is a state and politics without a state to exist, hence being nationalist and politically patriotic would be the way to fix issues and direct the conversation to a better angle.

You can still be a nationalist with isolationist foreign policy and still have multiculturalism internal domestic policies. Those aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, having strong borders allows you to have a state. Porous open borders means there’s no state. If there is no state, then voting and all this other shit doesn’t matter. There’s nothing wrong with wanting strong borders.

Anti-nationalism is borderline pussyfooting insurrectionism. Which is obviously not a politically sane thing to do on the left if they love voting and paying more taxes. The Left are dumb to push only anti US sentiment, but are right to critique it’s actions.

In defense, the Left can also advocate for anti-police states. The Right is retarded in being bootlickers and touting their religious morality while ignoring the deaths of hundreds of thousands caused by policies, in say, health care insurance. We could do better by not being a racist state or nation that pretends to be multicultural while also racially profiling people.

And in defense of the Right, why is it the usual suspects that are commiting the crimes statistically. At a certain point, it’s not racist. But also, from the Left, you have to respect basic human rights and due process of law. You can’t just boot lick someone just because they ‘might’ be right. Both Left and Right need to understand and ‘follow’ the laws, support them, and if they don’t like em ‘vote em out’. (there are other avenues, but I’m not here to imply the damage you can do with a lighter and a match).

This is of course, if you believe in political dialectic and discourse.

Bootlickers on either side are dumb.

The Left has to uphold the law, you can’t allow rapists and chomos to run rampant even if they’re ‘asylum seekers’. All for the sake of ‘tolerance and understanding’ in multiculturalism.

The Right has to uphold due process, you can’t just arrest people in a police state willy nilly without following the law and due process.

The Right also has to acknowledge the shared American values on multiculturalism. The USA can’t be an ethnostate without lots of work, see insults above. This includes H1-B visa work slaves. Yes the system is flawed and yes outsourcing labor is bad for the state. Those are political issues. But being racist and shitting on a nation of India and their people for taking opportunities and chances is Unamerican. The land of opportunity can’t be the land of opportunity if you shit on people for taking a chance at such an opportunity.

Which, by the way, you’re totally allowed to be racist. For the record. I’m just gonna call you retarded if you’re racist for all the wrong short-sighted reasons and not the fun ones.

All in all, the solutions are simple. Be patriotic and pro-nationalist while voting and being politically active towards your ideals, upholding the law and social fabric of the nation, allowing legal channels to be accepted.

This is also of course, if you believe in politics and political action.

If the Right doesn’t like the H1-B visa system, the reasonable thing is to implement politics to change that.

If the Left doesn’t like the direction the Nation is going that they feel apologetic for the term nationalism, then implement politics to change that to become atleast open to the idea or label of nationalists in a sense.

This is of course, all assuming, that the politics in the nation can actually function and isn’t just a fake facade of smoke and mirrors where they don’t actually burn your vote. In anycase, most of you will probably just cry on the digital agora and pretend like you’re doing stuff.

In Closing

TLDR: The moment an ethnostate seeks to impose itself through force (genocide, ethnic cleansing, or violence), it ceases to be a legitimate expression of ethnic identity and instead becomes a tool of oppression, violence, and injustice. Immoral.

There’s nothing wrong with having an ethnostate. There are some complications with starting one, which makes it morally questionable to create or expand (an ethnostate).

It’s not inherently immoral for a group of people to want to exist in a private land by their peers who share the same cultural values. If the world disapproves, they’ll place a bunch of sanctions on them, like they did to Germany in WW2 or to North Korea now.

In a society, there are social contracts that weave as threads of social fabric. The same applies for an international society between nations, there are implied social contracts including the recognition and authenticity of a nation. Ultimately, we’re all human and not respecting the agency or will of the other party is unamerican.

Ultimately, if you see humans as humans and think they have the same rights you are entitled to, then it’s up to you and them to defend and respect those rights.

Of course, there are values, both religious and cultural, that are ideologically opposed and don’t mix like water and oil. That’s what we, as a human society, is trying to figure out with the American Experiment. Can this shit work, or will it blow up like usual? Because if the American Experiment fails, chances are, the Entire world is going to embrace ethnostates and anti-multi-culturalism. (which are already on the rise due to anti-immigration and other ideologues).

I mean, For the United States to be the New Rome and Global Imperial empire, it seems successful. We just gotta last another thousand years to really solidify these ideals, and then maybe they can spread to the East.

Good luck

*Not Valid Financial, Legal, Life or Any Advice

Post Script

The discussion about ethnostates can also be applied to Globalistan. The idea of a Global multiculturalism. It’s a globalist agenda that they’re pushing onto every Western Nation. Perhaps intentionally committing self-suicide or perhaps a subversion tactic from the East. Who knows.

The point being, globalism by itself isn’t wrong or morally unethical.

It’s only when they commit violence, both real and economic, through sanctions or boom-bust cycles of floating a target nation’s reserve currency and other underhanded economic tactics. Does the Globalist agenda fail to be morally ethical. Genocide, oppression, violence, economic violence, all of which makes the Globalist agenda itself unethical.

That’s right, on the road to pave good intentions, you just made everyone elses’ lives hell. It’s just rebranded imperialism or colonization. This includes the EU and how it circumvents it’s member nation’s constitutions.

People have to be willing to usher in either an ethnostate or globalist state. If they aren’t willing, the answer isn’t manufacturing consent through mass formation psychosis and other unethical forms of social engineering and manipulation.

The answer is to ensure human rights are protected and a degree of mutual respect exists where communication can be had and not violence or some other retarded shit. It all hinges on mutual consent of the participants. And to reiterate, it’s unethical to manufacture that consent.

On one extreme, you have ethnostate nationalism, and on the other you have multiculturalism globalism. These aren’t exactly axiomatically opposed, but the parallels for both are simple to see.

I fed all this shit into Chat GPT, and laughed

Here’s what I said in passing;

The humor lies in the irony and duality of a horse shoe loop of what can be thought to be axiomatically opposed ideals. Obviously anyone wanting a global ethnostate threatens all other nations, so that’s not viable without another world war. Meaning the options are multicultural states, ethnostates, and a global multicultural state. It’s the cartesian logic of possibility.

Here’s what chat said;

The irony lies in how opposing ideals—such as the pursuit of a global ethnostate and the notion of a multicultural world—can both be driven by the same core impulse: a desire for order, coherence, or unity. The paradox, of course, is that these two paths often seem diametrically opposed, yet both envision a world in which human diversity is somehow harmonized—but through drastically different means.

Global Multiculturalism: As you pointed out, this could theoretically lead to a global community where people of all cultures and backgrounds coexist, but trying to impose that from above would be near impossible without heavy conflict. And once cultures are intertwined on a global level, questions of identity, autonomy, and sovereignty are inevitably muddied.

Ethnostates: Meanwhile, if everyone who shares an ethnicity lives within the same borders, you have a sense of coherence and order, but the violent or coercive methods of getting there make it an untenable proposition for the majority. And if one nation expands its borders to claim others, it inevitably causes conflict and international disorder.

Multicultural States: They offer a compromise of sorts, where different cultural groups live together within one border, but this often results in the tensions you’ve mentioned. Multiculturalism may lead to integration, but not without some level of cultural sacrifice or economic disparity, especially if integration becomes forced or one-sided.

The Inevitable Irony

The true irony here is that when looking at these ideals through a logical lens, all of them face insurmountable challenges in creating a world that is peaceful, coherent, and functional for all. The dualities of inclusion versus exclusion in these ideologies are not just opposites, but they also bleed into each other in unexpected ways.

In a way, the ultimate paradox here is that the pursuit of either a unified global state or exclusive homogenous ethnostates might both lead to destabilizing outcomes that underscore the complexity of human identity and the limitations of ideologies to account for those complexities.