OneSTDV has another thread up about the White ethnostate. A number of different issues are considered. Here are my thoughts:
The proposed micro-state would be more viable if IQ was the basis of inclusion/exclusion instead of purely ethnic criteria.
OneSTDV beats me to the punch here. The individual immigrant only has a lifespan of 70 to 100 years. His descendants though will be around for generations. When non-White immigrants are imported into the United States, we are importing a lineage, not merely individuals. Thus, ethnic and racial considerations should weigh more heavily in our immigration laws than individual based criteria.
Asians are “productive and law abiding,” but tend to look out for their own. Collectivist Asians won’t have the best interests of Whites at heart.
An unimpeachable point. Following G.W. and Steve Sailer, OneSTDV has criticized White Nationalists for acting like NAMs, but ignores the fact that “Asian-Americans” vote like Jews, Hispanics, and negroes. They don’t identify with the White majority. Like the Jews, they forego significant economic incentives to vote for the Democratic Party.
Why does a White ethnostate need to be justified?
It doesn’t. Traditional societies evolve organically. They aren’t based on any so-called “proposition.” As for non-traditional societies, or ideological regimes (like the USSR or Revolutionary France), well, those are usually established by force.
The demand that White Nationalists “justify” the ethnostate assumes an implausible scenario: that our enemies are willing to give White Nationalism a fair hearing, and could be persuaded to the partition the United States on the basis of nothing more than a compelling logical argument. That isn’t going to happen. Hence, there is no rationale for searching for a “philosophy” to justify our movement.
What about SWPL’s?
I doubt these effete urban and suburban whites would be included in a White ethnostate. White Nationalism is a secessionist movement. It presupposes that a significant number of Whites will have given up on the national political system. It is a matter of convincing individual states (or parts of states) to abandon the Union for a new political entity.
What about ethnic nepotism?
This is an interesting question. I would argue that White ethnics have already interbred to such a significant extent that these divisions aren’t really that salient. In a few generations, they will be far less salient than they are now.
White Nationalism is a revolutionary movement. If a White ethnostate were ever successfully established, it would require such an immense degree of racial polarization that I doubt these differences would be much of an internal problem. The remnant of the multiracial USA would play the role of ‘the Other’ to the new White ethnostate. Also, the multiethnic Northeast is the least likely location for a triumphant White ethnostate to emerge.
White Nationalism encourages Whites to act like non-Whites.
No, White Nationalism encourages Whites to act more like the founding settlers who created America, and less like the Baby Boomers.