Hahaha! Jews! That’s your counter example? Putting aside all the baggage on particular group, let’s just take their own history at face value: they got driven out of country after country after country through no fault of their own until most recently they got holocausted. Luckily, many of them escaped or were living elsewhere, and they got enough sympathy and influence in other countries that they were able to build their own state, so their position is a bit more secure now even though they have lots of people that hate them still.
Is that about right? Is that something you’d agree to, as a broad strokes sort of summary?
Great! Now, imagine a much much more globalized world, where the Jews get driven out of a nation or targeted for a holocaust, but no one takes them in because the same exact ideology has taken over (or at least exerts massive pressure on) all the other countries they might also live in or flee to. Instead of it being “Spain expels the Jews” in 1492 or whatever, it’s “every country in Europe expels the Jews all at once, and actually maybe instead of making them leave they formally round them up and kill them.”
And yet, the jews still exist, correct? The jews haven't had a homeland for over 2,000 years, and despite not having a political state they still have their own communities, traditions, culture, and even language. In fact, the largest population of jews on Earth, to this day, remains in the US, where they have never had a state, and have never had a majority of the population, and were never institutionalized.
And yet there they are, largely in peaceful and prosperous communities in the US.
You think given the worst possible case scenario for whites, which is still not even remotely likely, they couldn't preform at least just as well as the jews. Last time I checked, even the Boers and Rhodesians are still holding together under terrible conditions.
You completely dodged (or missed) the point. It was very clear. This response, IMO, can only be explained by either ideological blindness or actual bad-faith behavior.
Since I don't think you're a bad-faith actor, that just reinforces my opinion of your ideological blindness on this topic.
Can an ethnic group: exist, be prosperous, be influential; without an ethno-state?
Obviously, the answer is yes and that is clearly demonstrated by jews who have a) existed continuously for over 2,000 years, b) been without a state for around that time, c) remained a tight knit ethnic group, d) prospered during that time in different areas for different time spans, e) have been influential during that time in different areas for different time spans.
So yes. Congratulations: white people can successfully exist without an ethno-state because I don't think whites are inferior to jews. I especially don't think that whites are inferior to white jews.
This argument that each and every state must be a single ethno-state or the ethnicity dies is an archaic progressive argument from the Woodrow Wilson era. It was silly then, and it's silly now.
You completely missed the point. The point was that your historical example (the Jews did fine) doesn’t work because this time, the ability to flee to other countries where a hypothetical pogrom isn’t happening may well be nonexistent.
The point was so explicit—and you have demonstrated that you aren’t enough of a moron—that you can only be considered intentionally disingenuous for having “missed” it.
And why are Jews so powerful and successful? Because they practice the most aggressive tribalism of any ethnic demo on the planet. Exactly the same ethnic tribalism that you are denying to white peoples. Seriously, you couldn’t have brought a worse example to prove your point. You’re actually quite stupid.
No, you're thinking of the Mayans, that's why they conquered and ate their vassals in their empire.
The jews are successful due to literacy, economic productivity, and strong communal ties. Same reason the Anglos and eventually Scots became wildly successful. You don't need tribalism.
Hahaha! Jews! That’s your counter example? Putting aside all the baggage on particular group, let’s just take their own history at face value: they got driven out of country after country after country through no fault of their own until most recently they got holocausted. Luckily, many of them escaped or were living elsewhere, and they got enough sympathy and influence in other countries that they were able to build their own state, so their position is a bit more secure now even though they have lots of people that hate them still.
Is that about right? Is that something you’d agree to, as a broad strokes sort of summary?
Great! Now, imagine a much much more globalized world, where the Jews get driven out of a nation or targeted for a holocaust, but no one takes them in because the same exact ideology has taken over (or at least exerts massive pressure on) all the other countries they might also live in or flee to. Instead of it being “Spain expels the Jews” in 1492 or whatever, it’s “every country in Europe expels the Jews all at once, and actually maybe instead of making them leave they formally round them up and kill them.”
How’s that work out for the Jews?
And yet, the jews still exist, correct? The jews haven't had a homeland for over 2,000 years, and despite not having a political state they still have their own communities, traditions, culture, and even language. In fact, the largest population of jews on Earth, to this day, remains in the US, where they have never had a state, and have never had a majority of the population, and were never institutionalized.
And yet there they are, largely in peaceful and prosperous communities in the US.
You think given the worst possible case scenario for whites, which is still not even remotely likely, they couldn't preform at least just as well as the jews. Last time I checked, even the Boers and Rhodesians are still holding together under terrible conditions.
You completely dodged (or missed) the point. It was very clear. This response, IMO, can only be explained by either ideological blindness or actual bad-faith behavior.
Since I don't think you're a bad-faith actor, that just reinforces my opinion of your ideological blindness on this topic.
I didn't miss the point, I addressed it directly.
Can an ethnic group: exist, be prosperous, be influential; without an ethno-state?
Obviously, the answer is yes and that is clearly demonstrated by jews who have a) existed continuously for over 2,000 years, b) been without a state for around that time, c) remained a tight knit ethnic group, d) prospered during that time in different areas for different time spans, e) have been influential during that time in different areas for different time spans.
So yes. Congratulations: white people can successfully exist without an ethno-state because I don't think whites are inferior to jews. I especially don't think that whites are inferior to white jews.
This argument that each and every state must be a single ethno-state or the ethnicity dies is an archaic progressive argument from the Woodrow Wilson era. It was silly then, and it's silly now.
You completely missed the point. The point was that your historical example (the Jews did fine) doesn’t work because this time, the ability to flee to other countries where a hypothetical pogrom isn’t happening may well be nonexistent.
The point was so explicit—and you have demonstrated that you aren’t enough of a moron—that you can only be considered intentionally disingenuous for having “missed” it.
And why are Jews so powerful and successful? Because they practice the most aggressive tribalism of any ethnic demo on the planet. Exactly the same ethnic tribalism that you are denying to white peoples. Seriously, you couldn’t have brought a worse example to prove your point. You’re actually quite stupid.
No, you're thinking of the Mayans, that's why they conquered and ate their vassals in their empire.
The jews are successful due to literacy, economic productivity, and strong communal ties. Same reason the Anglos and eventually Scots became wildly successful. You don't need tribalism.