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 I've said multiple times I don't believe whites are even remotely close to being in the level of ethnic displacement that the jews were in. Comparing whites to jews is a demonstration of the most extreme possible outcome for whites which isn't going to happen. This is because there is no pogrom of whites, whites have plenty of places to go to both internally and externally, and there has been no mass expulsions outside of Zimbabwe and potentially South Africa.
You are not going to encounter a mass expulsion of whites from France. It's not going to happen. It's not close to happening. There's nothing like that.
If you think that whites are in a worse situation than jews, you're just being delusional.
And here we see another bit of your chronic disingenuousness. The entire discussion is about what has been happening, what is happening, and what that implies for future trends. As soon as it becomes convenient, though, only the present exists for you. It doesn’t matter that white populations have been decreasing. It doesn’t matter that anti-white sentiment has been increasing. That can’t be extrapolated into the future! Trend lines aren’t real (unless they’re advantageous for you, of course), so since whites aren’t all being exterminated now (except the attacks in South Africa, but that, too, is not “bad enough”… yet, and of course, “yet” isn’t real.) then surely whites will not ever be targeted in the future!
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 I've said multiple times I don't believe whites are even remotely close to being in the level of ethnic displacement that the jews were in. Comparing whites to jews is a demonstration of the most extreme possible outcome for whites which isn't going to happen. This is because there is no pogrom of whites, whites have plenty of places to go to both internally and externally, and there has been no mass expulsions outside of Zimbabwe and potentially South Africa.
You are not going to encounter a mass expulsion of whites from France. It's not going to happen. It's not close to happening. There's nothing like that.
If you think that whites are in a worse situation than jews, you're just being delusional.
And here we see another bit of your chronic disingenuousness. The entire discussion is about what has been happening, what is happening, and what that implies for future trends. As soon as it becomes convenient, though, only the present exists for you. It doesn’t matter that white populations have been decreasing. It doesn’t matter that anti-white sentiment has been increasing. That can’t be extrapolated into the future! Trend lines aren’t real (unless they’re advantageous for you, of course), so since whites aren’t all being exterminated now (except the attacks in South Africa, but that, too, is not “bad enough”… yet, and of course, “yet” isn’t real.) then surely whites will not ever be targeted in the future!