you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No matter where you start from, what you incentivize through the state will lead to a future of more people linking the incentive.

Let’s say your state is 100% “your perfect category” of people. You decide to allow 1% of an “other”. How well “other” intergrates into “your perfect category” is key.

Europe decided that language was the way to define “other”. Has messed it up. America had an racial identity but like your post it failed to identify an “other”.

Think of this in another way. If a black nationalist movement starts today, they too have problems defining the category “black”. But they have no issues defining the “other” category.

If an Islamic state exists, they have 0 trouble defining the “other”

Ideological clarity of defining who is not in either. The basis can be by action, belief or birth. All this so that is “your perfect category” has an identity it is willing to be proud of and maintain in dignity

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    That is for political reasons but it’s Not reality. To see how a people behave, they must be in confident power.

    The reality is that in America they are a 10% minority with an 70%ish antagonist majority. So the smaller 1-4% groups are strategic “Allies” in antagonism to the large majority. Communists know the politics of majority and minority.

    Let’s see nations which had a majority black population with tiny pockets of brown population. Caribbean ones like Trinidad Tobago, Guyana all places the brown folk were/are severely persecuted. Is there any brown affirmative action there for minorities ?

    In Africa, Uganda saw a exodus en masse, South Africa has been anti white but if history is any regard, it will be anti brown soon as well.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]Parthings 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      If history is a reference, then majority African countries are antagonistic to brown and yellow people after the white leave.

      Will the same play out in America ? Not sure. African Americans have a differnt history from most other Africans

      [–]negrogreBeing black is anti-white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      That isn't surprising. If the one drop rule dictates that a person is black, they're black. Black nationalism was born in the West and those who designed it knew that blacks are the floor.

      [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I agree with your point here. Very clear in group out group definitions are key.

      In my mind in group is Europeans outgroup in non europeans. The 9% people's community isn't going to be a group of people we import every year. It's a way to start the ethnostate without 100% white people in the territory. Which would be really difficult with today's demographics. After the state was established the only people my ethnostate would really 'import' would be people that are ex pats seeking right of return. Otherwise it's a closed system. People that are non white that want to come to work, study, and do cultural/religious exchange can never be more than 1% of the population and can't legally marry anyone in the core 90% population. I think that's a pretty good recipe for keeping a core ethnic/racial family intact and healthy yet not too cut off from the outside world.

      All three groups would also have different rules and laws that govern them. Foreign nationals would have the least rights and citizens the most right. People's community somewhere in the middle.