Imma start this with: no countries have a right to exist. All countries may be dissolved by their nations at will. Nations do not necessarily need countries, but they may seek them if this is their choice.
The Jews were scapegoated and oppressed in nearly every country...
Blah blah blah. Everyone has a sob story. Jews, as a religion, do not require a state, and lived without one for thousands of years. Jews, like many other nations or religions, may live without a state. Having a state doesn't not prevent oppression. All of this line of argumentation is irrelevant.
More specifically, collective rights may exist, again, without a state. In fact, the jews at many different points and times were given collective privileges by non-jewish states.
England has never been under this kind of threat, at least not since the Normans 960 years ago, and not quite so severely
Being good at war doesn't invalidate 'collective rights'.
The "English" are also a bit of a complicated mix of people-groups, if you want to get really ethnic about it.
No one wants to have this conversation. Sorry, but religions are always going to be less homogenous than specific indigenous, geographically local, genetically similar, nations. The English are more of a homogenous people than Jews are. You just have a bunch of Ashkenazi Jews (and a swathe of Jew haters) pretending that Jews don't come in forms outside of Ashkenazi, and definitely aren't in Ethiopia, China, Russia, or Iraq. Then you've got the European Neo-Liberal Jews pretending that they're super homogenous, despite being atheists, and intermarrying with non-jews for several generations, because they are wearing a skin suit.
or to take steps to establish an ethnostate like Israel as the last means of defending itself. That, of course, means abandoning the English tradition (making England not England), which has never applied to the Israeli circumstance.
England was more of an ethno-state than Israel. That's why Israel wanted to import European Jews, and the English didn't have to go anywhere. I may be a Civic Nationalist, but that's because I'm an American patriot. We created a nation that wasn't there before. We are engaging in ethnogenesis. The English never did.
The Israelis, specifically the Zionists created a civic, secular, progressive identity draped in the clothing of ethnic group, which it really isn't.
you trying to pass off that Marx isn't a collectivist, which is bar-none the dumbest thing you've ever said.
This is a fair criticism. Carl doesn't want to accept that Communism, even Rousseauian Liberalism, is effectively antithetical to Liberalism. Liberalism is trying to have political freedom, but at a certain point the Leftists are screaming that to be truly free you have to become the new socialist man and that means being an abject slave to the state. The outcome is collectivist, not individualist.
If you want to set up England as an ethnostate, you'll almost certainly fail, catastrophically for your country and your people, and whether you do or don't, good damn luck to you with what you get as a result
Bro, it was an ethno-state in, like, 1984.
England isn't even a state on its own yet, so you've got some work ahead of you, and good luck untangling your people groups.
Aroo??? It's literally a kingdom. It's blended in with the Act of Union, but it does exist.
he leadership of the ethnostates start looking for things to blame.
This could be done, but doesn't have to be. Just because a country is ethnically homogenous (or at least majority), it doesn't mean that the state has to engage in resentment mongering for the population. Denmark has been an ethno-state for it's post-imperial period, and it doesn't hyper-fixate on the dangers of the Belgians.
You're confusing a government of a homogenous society, with Communists.
If England made an ethnostate by covenant with its long history, that ethnostate would be... English Liberal. And then what?
It would just be England. I grant you that the Anglo mind tends toward Liberalism, but that doesn't mean that the Communist is the end-state of the English. The English may dispense with Liberalism in the same way they chose to dispense with Catholicism.
Hitler made implicit references to his intentions as such in Mein Kampf, explaining that people who weren't true ethnic Germans would be sent to nations where they belong if they didn't like being second-class citizens after recognizing that Jews and Romani people were stateless (therefore would have to be dealt with somehow else...). The real question is how you keep your ethno-England off that road if you start going down it now.
It's simple: you don't murder everyone like a fucking lunatic National Socialist, and you don't demographically replace yourself with mass migration like a lunatic Fabian Socialist.
Being a "second class citizen" because you're a foreigner who isn't integrating is not a problem. It's a feature. Colonies are always a bad idea, even for the colonist. They will need to assimilate or leave. Again, problems don't have to be solved with Left Wing Death Squads.
Imma start this with: no countries have a right to exist. All countries may be dissolved by their nations at will. Nations do not necessarily need countries, but they may seek them if this is their choice.
Blah blah blah. Everyone has a sob story. Jews, as a religion, do not require a state, and lived without one for thousands of years. Jews, like many other nations or religions, may live without a state. Having a state doesn't not prevent oppression. All of this line of argumentation is irrelevant.
More specifically, collective rights may exist, again, without a state. In fact, the jews at many different points and times were given collective privileges by non-jewish states.
Being good at war doesn't invalidate 'collective rights'.
No one wants to have this conversation. Sorry, but religions are always going to be less homogenous than specific indigenous, geographically local, genetically similar, nations. The English are more of a homogenous people than Jews are. You just have a bunch of Ashkenazi Jews (and a swathe of Jew haters) pretending that Jews don't come in forms outside of Ashkenazi, and definitely aren't in Ethiopia, China, Russia, or Iraq. Then you've got the European Neo-Liberal Jews pretending that they're super homogenous, despite being atheists, and intermarrying with non-jews for several generations, because they are wearing a skin suit.
England was more of an ethno-state than Israel. That's why Israel wanted to import European Jews, and the English didn't have to go anywhere. I may be a Civic Nationalist, but that's because I'm an American patriot. We created a nation that wasn't there before. We are engaging in ethnogenesis. The English never did.
The Israelis, specifically the Zionists created a civic, secular, progressive identity draped in the clothing of ethnic group, which it really isn't.
This is a fair criticism. Carl doesn't want to accept that Communism, even Rousseauian Liberalism, is effectively antithetical to Liberalism. Liberalism is trying to have political freedom, but at a certain point the Leftists are screaming that to be truly free you have to become the new socialist man and that means being an abject slave to the state. The outcome is collectivist, not individualist.
Bro, it was an ethno-state in, like, 1984.
Aroo??? It's literally a kingdom. It's blended in with the Act of Union, but it does exist.
This could be done, but doesn't have to be. Just because a country is ethnically homogenous (or at least majority), it doesn't mean that the state has to engage in resentment mongering for the population. Denmark has been an ethno-state for it's post-imperial period, and it doesn't hyper-fixate on the dangers of the Belgians.
You're confusing a government of a homogenous society, with Communists.
It would just be England. I grant you that the Anglo mind tends toward Liberalism, but that doesn't mean that the Communist is the end-state of the English. The English may dispense with Liberalism in the same way they chose to dispense with Catholicism.
It's simple: you don't murder everyone like a fucking lunatic National Socialist, and you don't demographically replace yourself with mass migration like a lunatic Fabian Socialist.
Being a "second class citizen" because you're a foreigner who isn't integrating is not a problem. It's a feature. Colonies are always a bad idea, even for the colonist. They will need to assimilate or leave. Again, problems don't have to be solved with Left Wing Death Squads.