It is morally defensible to establish a nation-state built around maintaining a specific and exclusive ethnic population

Luke Setzer's picture
Submitted by Luke Setzer on Mon, 2017-04-10 10:04
Yes
92% (11 votes)
No
0% (0 votes)
Sometimes (explain)
8% (1 vote)
Total votes: 12

I Wish

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

"Today Yaron said that "Trump wants to create and ethno nationalist state."

I wish.

Yaron foolishly believes that Trump is secretly doing the bidding of Richard Spencer which is a joke. Trump is a civic nationalist who so far seems to be a combination of Jeb Bush, John McCain and Pat Buchanan. Even Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer are saying good things about his spending plan.

Some white ethno-state.

BTW Yaron, speaking of ethno-states, what about Israel?

Blankout. lol

Yaron Says No

Neil Parille's picture

Today Yaron said that "Trump wants to create and ethno nationalist state." (Or words to that effect.)

YES!

Bruno Turner - BTO's picture

I vote with a resounding YES! So called "ethno-states" are a perfectly natural phenomenon.

In Europe right now we have many separatist movements wanting to break off from the larger "nation-states" such as Spain, the UK, France, and Italy.
Specifically as far as North Italy (where I was born and still currently live) is concerned I've been a separatist since my teens and I still hold that view to this day, though some form of de-centralized federalism would be a welcome first step.

"Objectivists" need to do some serious rethinking on issues of this kind. But the underlying problem is not this specific issue, or others, but a few underlying venomous premises that infect the whole movement's attitude.

To point what such premises are would require many a post of its own, but just to briefly touch the surface: there are certain contextual necessary conditions that give rise to peaceful and cooperative societies; these can be just as important for the creation of a "free society", as we invision it, as the "philosophical" underpinnings themselves.
Furthermore, speaking evolutionarily and historically, once we realize the necessity of such preconditions, we realize that getting read of them because of naive preconceived assumptions, the move to a "free society" not only won't be achieved but will be impeded.

So, speaking specifically about ethnicity, the more homogenous a society the more peaceful and cooperative. It is a "natural phenomenon", as I said in the opening, for like to attract like. So, how does an Objectivist take such a fact into account when fighting for the free society he invisions? Well, he can start by actually taking it into account and stop dismissing anyone who shows any interest in talking about such issues as "racist", "bigoted", "nativist", etc.

Ethno-states are a perfectly natural phenomenon. Don't dismiss a-priori the concept because you're afraid to be called names from the dishonest or ignorant.

Doug

Andrew Atkin's picture

Maybe I should have said "We know better" not "We know best".

Yes our current civilisation has gone weird (and wrong) in many ways. But we don't throw homosexuals off roofs for being born with an unusual sexual appetite. Or bring the family along to watch a public stoning, acid bath or limb removal etc, so everyone can get even more f----d up.

Insofar as other nations are a serious threat, we have every right and reason to defend ourselves. That was all I was really saying.

To be honest I am a bit of a globalist, in the sense that I like the idea of the stronger and more sane nations helping out other nations infinitely less lucky than ourselves, to better themselves, insofar as we can. To me there's no difference in the inherent value of a Kiwi kid over an Iranian kid....so I kinda care a bit.

Andrew

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

We are one world in terms of security

That's a dangerous line of thought you're advancing there. That is what they are referring to today as "globalism". The liberal internationalists want a one world UN and the NeoConservatives want an American Empire (which they basically already have).

Also, the idea that the Islamic countries and North Korea are "crazies" and are not rational political actors responding to incentives is wrong imo. Its also a staple of NeoCon propaganda. North Korea is doing what it is doing because they know that the elite will all be killed if America gets its way. They know that Gaddafi was anally sodomized with a screwdriver before he was killed. If I were a dictator and I knew that was a possibility, I'd want nukes too.

I have no problem with China having a sphere of influence and Russia having a sphere of influence, with the Islamic world being largely left to itself, and with America being the Switzerland of North America. That to me is true Americanism. Its also in line with Washington's "no foreign entanglements" which is not what today's US has when it has 800 bases in 130 different countries.

F**k them! We DO know best and we should not be afraid to act accordingly.

This is a stupid jingoistic statement worthy of the Objectivist movement and its rose colored view of America (which it shares with the NeoCons). WE DON"T KNOW WHAT'S BEST. Fuck that nonsense. America is a culture dominated by Progressives. Economically we're a Keynesian driven welfare state. We are exporting our inflation and our Cultural Marxism, which means hatred of white heterosexual males, and out degenerate sexual culture to the world. We are NOT paragons of virtue. America is becoming very UNLIKEABLE. And what happens when it is minority white and dominated by Leftists? Will you still want an America empire then?

I detest the Objectivist view of American empire which is what you all believe in. You people have the same moralistic tone that Progressives like Woodrow Wilson had. Jesus fucking Christ. And you don't even see your leftist elements.

A Nation Based Mainly Upon Ethnicity?

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I missed this question when it first came out two weeks ago.

"It is morally defensible to establish a nation-state built around maintaining a specific and exclusive ethnic population?"

I suppose so, but it seems low-priority, trivial, or even harmful to the nation and state. A nation-state seems best if it's based upon a true nation. That generally means those of similar language, geography, history, beliefs, etc. grouping together under just one gov't.

Isn't Israel based on this, and not ethnicity? My objection to most blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims in America is they reject the nation, and are proud, defiant traitors, as it were. They sometimes openly admit that they seek to destroy America from within. But if these natural foreigners and aliens hate America, brazenly reject her culture, wish to undermine and subvert her main institutions, reject the English language, hate white people, despise capitalism and freedom, etc., then why are they here? Why are they allowed to stay?

I want them out. But I want these treasonists deported based upon standards and ideals of nationhood, especially commonality of philosophy -- not commonality of ethnicity.

Ironic

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Lindsay writes:

"As you note, Kyrel, 'Doug' is in breach of the rules of posting. Yet when I moderate him you're first to complain and accuse me of "Randroid behaviour" etc."

I admit there's some irony here. I defend him publicly and privately, yet I seem to get attacked the most! Sticking out tongue (And, yes, I do think Randroidism still infects practically every strong Objectivist everywhere.)

I adore energetic and passionate discussions of wildly divergent views. But mere labels of, and insults to, people and their expressed views actually slows or destroys the discussion -- not advances or enhances it. I didn't realize that as much until very recently. My hope is that people will continue to intellectually clash strongly, but do so offering solid amounts of content and substance behind their remarks.

You and Bill O'Reilly are correct that on the internet often

"It's Defamation Alley as these lowlifes take delight in saying disgusting, revolting things about their fellow human beings while hiding behind an anonymous posture."

Et, Tu ...

Grant Jones's picture

Funny how the "rules of posting" were never applied to Mark Hubbard.

Even the Sierra Club Has Sold Its Soul to the Globalists

Luke Setzer's picture

Yesterday by Ann Coulter:

http://www.anncoulter.com/colu...

"[In] the early 2000s ... the Sierra Club was given $100 million by hedge fund billionaire David Gelbaum in exchange for never opposing immigration again. The club said, ... SURE! Did you bring the check? Mass Third World immigration is a triple whammy for the environment."

A propos from Bill O'Reilly

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm reading O'Reilly's excellent book, Old School at the moment, about the time when people were decent (some of us can remember). P 100:

... the world of machines [smartphones, Faecesbook, etc.] empowers sniveling cowards who used to be shunned by decent people. These smear merchants and Morlocks ... can now verbally assassinate anyone while concealing their own identity. It's Defamation Alley as these lowlifes take delight in saying disgusting, revolting things about their fellow human beings while hiding behind an anonymous posture.

As you note, Kyrel, "Doug" is in breach of the rules of posting. Yet when I moderate him you're first to complain and accuse me of "Randroid behaviour" etc.

Vacuous

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- You write:

"Kyrel is just a fucking idiot. Read his book (which I suffered through) to see how simple he is."

This comment egregiously violates the rules of Solo Passion (http://www.solopassion.com/gui...). It also marks you as malicious and morally low. And it grossly insults every reader here. Is everyone to take this statement on your authority alone or as an act of blind faith?

The above quote is a mere claim or unbacked assertion -- not an argument. It's also an insult and ad hominem argument -- not something a respectable person would say, nor a real argument. Please give us at least a few sentences -- evidence or reason of some kind -- to back up your evaluations of myself and my book. Otherwise the "discussion" is utterly hopeless and entirely empty.

Perigo-Setzer Axis Contra Bandler-Hunter Axis

Luke Setzer's picture

My "reason" for my objections centers primarily against those along the Bandler-Hunter contention favoring a "whites only" immigration policy. I have no problem forbidding entry of those persons adhering to an ideology that favors murder of infidels, whether they be Muslims or Communists, even in marriage. As long as that well-reasoned policy is well-publicized and commonly known, citizens will know the consequences of being seduced by such persons. The obvious problem is detection of them.

I also have no problem forbidding willy-nilly entry of people who supposedly have "skills" that corporations "need." The current situation creates economic conditions that drive wages down for all current residents. There are so many questions raised by the current corporate feudalism that I hardly know where to start to answer them. I can see exactly why so many favored Trump and his wall.

When I married my wife in 1991 and we applied for her permanent residence, I had to sign a form pledging not to place her on public assistance. The application had a myriad of questions about her health, criminal background, etc. There was nothing unreasonable about any of the standards. Only the bureaucracy itself was painful.

There are other scenarios involving reformation of a government within an existing population, and how to formulate it in a way that does not result in constant unrest among the residents. Suddenly forbidding family members outside the borders from crossing them will definitely create unrest. Moreover, it is almost impossible to find a completely vacant piece of land to start a "pure" nation from scratch.

All of these variations make me lean toward "Sometimes" as the answer simply because "one size does not fit all"!

So that is how I am voting based on the following distinction about meanings of key terms:

If we all agreed that our ideal "ethnicity" means a population of those persons who support limited government, free speech, etc., then I would answer "Yes." Clearly that is not what the term means to most people most of the time. The very term "ethnicity" contributes to weasel-wording. But since I have seen it used in discussions here, I wanted to employ it to see where it leads us.

I voted "Sometimes" because it is morally defensible during those "times" when "ethnicity" means means "a population of those persons who support limited government, free speech, etc.," and morally indefensible otherwise.

Luke

Lindsay Perigo's picture

For those who voted "Yes," I assume family laws in such a nation-state would consequently forbid marrying and reproducing outside one's own ethnicity.

An absurd assumption!! Why on earth do you make it? Just one reason will suffice. Smiling

In my ideal nation-state, the state would have nothing to do with relationships, other than upholding/enforcing contracts. That to me is one ultimate expression of civilised values. Please explain before you vote "no" to your own question why such a view of the role of the state is incompatible with believing that a civilised nation-state has the right to protect itself qua civilised nation-state against savages such as Muslims.

"Ethnic" to me is code for "white," since it just so happens that Western Civilisation—the best—is predominantly white, but if "white" values are embraced by blacks, yellows and piebalds, I couldn't care less. This is the difference, I suppose, between you and me on the one hand and Doug on the other. He believes "white" is intrinsically, biologically, DNA-superior (higher IQ).

Luke, you'd be able to marry anyone of any colour under my scenario as long as he/she wasn't a foreign Muslim, since under my scenario no such savage would be allowed in.

The problem for me is that Western Civilisation is being betrayed by vermin like Brook who should be at the forefront of its defence. That's the real issue. This other stuff is fixation upon non-essentials.

What Is Ethnicity?

Luke Setzer's picture

A common online dictionary found on Google mentions nothing explicitly about race:


eth·nic·i·ty
eTHˈnisədē/
noun
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
"the interrelationship between gender, ethnicity, and class"

Does Israel require immigrants to be Jewish by race or just by culture?

I have read that 75% of Israeli Jews are secular Jews, not religious Jews.

I am still chewing on this notion of ethnicity as a concept.

Right now I am leaning toward "no" to the poll because of the many questions begged.

A rational nationalism would center on life-affirming secular virtues any average person can practice, not unchosen traits like race.

"But-but-but there is no such thing as an average person! Only average Jews or average Gentiles or average Africans or average Northern Europeans! We need to account for population averages even in marriage!"

Blah, blah, blah ...

Marriage Laws

edpowell's picture

I don't see restrictions on marriage and procreation to be required or even implied by ethno-nations. Immigration laws restrict residency, as they do in most countries. Even if there is complete freedom to marry foreigners and bring them into the country, which there usually is, this will be a very,very small fraction of people in the country. People marry who they meet. Very few people meet foreigners enough to marry them. So it's not really an issue. Nor is it necessarily the job of the state--any state--to dictate to an individual who he or she can or cannot marry.

Marriage and Reproduction Laws and Their Enforcement

Luke Setzer's picture

For those who voted "Yes," I assume family laws in such a nation-state would consequently forbid marrying and reproducing outside one's own ethnicity.

This greatly limits sexual love prospects, which runs counter to Maslow and many other models of human psychology. It also makes enforcement difficult without the enforcement turning into a big problem unto itself. In short, it becomes ethno-fascism, and fascism runs counter to personal liberty.

How propose you to enforce these edicts while also claiming to support personal liberty?

Doug

Andrew Atkin's picture

There is a good argument for America to put the barbarian world on a leash.

The technology factor. In 50 years time (let's say) it will be incredibly easy for any rogue state to download god knows what off the internet and print it out. I have spoken about this before.

There is the question of whether we can afford to have rogue states in a world like this, where any small group can be extraordinarily dangerous - potentially.

We don't have to wait for crazies to prove in practice that they're a threat, when we know already that they are.

We are one world in terms of security, and we have the right to be 'arrogant' when dealing with primitives who displace moral responsibility onto some kind of cookbook that they believe was written by god. F**k them! We DO know best and we should not be afraid to act accordingly.

---------------------------------------------------

As for the poll, it comes down to freedom of association. We can tell whoever we want to bugger off and for whatever reason we want. End of conversation Smiling

Yes on ethno-nationalism

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Building and maintaining ethno-states is moral. In fact, the future of liberty depends on white people preserving themselves. A multi-racial libertarian society remains hypothetical at this point. You can't assume it the way Randians or mainstream libertarians do.

You need cognitive power at the population level to build the type of civic trust that liberty requires. Low IQ populations, ie Black and Brown people, will militate against the social trust needed for libertarianism. Race realism will be absolutely essential for libertarianism going forward. In fact libertarianism has no future if it does not incorporate socio-biology and genetics. Objectivism has no future for that reason, its social constructivism on steroids and denies science. There are dozens of other reasons Objectivism has no future but that's a big one. Liberty and free markets do have a future, assuming we don't suffer racial devolution or civilization ending war.

So Luke that means contributions to the Ayn Rand Institute are pretty useless. You might as well just give the money to the Israeli Defense League.

Stupid

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

"What care they that Assad's weapons will be able to be dispersed much more widely, including against them, if they're not neutralised by strikes such as these?"

You say stupid things like this because you still get your news from Fox or other similar outlets. Assad represents no military threat against America. That you think he does shows me what level you're on.

Also, America has killed hundreds of thousands of children using worse weapons than what Assad allegedly used (which I think is bullshit). America has been killing Muslim children for decades with no crocodile tears. Where was the American "moral compass" when it used depleted Uranium in Iraq. There will be genetic deformities for generations because of the weapons used there. I'm not a Muslim apologist but killing should be done for legitimate reasons of self-defense. NONE OF THIS IS SELF DEFENSIVE WAR. Its motivated by bad ideology, the major culprits being liberal internationalism, Neo-Conservatism and Zionism.

America has been killing the people it has because of a view, motivated by a moral imperative, that America has a messianic duty to uplift the world. That view, a view Rand would have condemned, is evil. America is advancing an evil worldview and its military is the means by which it is doing so.

Linz, you are ignorantly (and proudly) supporting that view. In principle, I see no difference between you and Brook (or Bill Kristol or David Frum).

And Kyrel is just a fucking idiot. Read his book (which I suffered through) to see how simple he is.

Yes, but...

edpowell's picture

I don't think "establish" is the right verb. "Maintain" is probably a better way of saying it. I think the case of Israel being established in living memory is an anomaly that won't be repeated ever again.

Yes! And ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... that's my solitary, proud "yes" vote. Rational, proud, chauvinistic nationalism is the imperative of our time, when primitive tribalism is asserting the inferiority of Western Civilisation. Note that Bwook tweeted in the wake of Twump's win that we'd have to pivot from fighting socialism to fighting nationalism. What he meant by nationalism was American patriotism, since he was/is busy facilitating the path of hundreds of thousands of Muslims into America, on the grounds that these savages will absorb Jeffersonian liberalism by Osmosis. The old intrinsicist fallacy in other words. Where is Leonard when such excrement is being touted in Objectivism's name?! And why are people right here, hitherto supportive of Trump, now denouncing him because he's shown that human decency in foreign affairs can sometimes trump previously-rigidly-insisted-upon dogma qua dogma.

Bwook, ARISIS, Bandler and Parille are demonstrating one common denominator: the most appalling atrocities against human beings must be acquiesced to in the name of not being a neo-con or anyone/anything else in Kyrel's devastating, hilarious and accurate "witches' brew" of villains.

What care they that Assad's weapons will be able to be dispersed much more widely, including against them, if they're not neutralised by strikes such as these?

The absence of a moral compass shown by the nay-sayers is sickening. They're Filth. If they're taken down by other Filth, like suicide bombers, that's win-win for decent, civilised human beings.

Israel as a Prime Example

Luke Setzer's picture

I posted this poll because the question of Israel as a Jewish nation-state keeps resurfacing here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.