But this sentiment works against non-genocidal ethnonationalism where ethnicities are geographically intermingled, which is pretty common.
What does this actually mean?—especially in terms of your last reference.
First, I still don't know what copy books have to do with anything; please connect it for me.
White nationalism is a lot more specific than that. White nationalism is a internationalist ideology that relies heavily on social Darwinism and believes in pan European identity. It’s also characteristically and typically atheist, many will go and just say “Jesus is a dead kike on a stick” and is generally more accepting of Pagans than Christianity. Its also relatively accepting of the lgbt, doesn’t really care much about what a lot of social cons see as degenerate and would hold interracial marriage is worse than say, abortion or prostitution. It’s also obviously pretty anti-Jewish and generally wants pan European ethnostates not really tied to any one culture.
Does this not show that ethnonationalism is a poor fit for such places, presuming that the people there wish to avoid genocide?
Well, I am not convinced there is no solution that does not involve genocide, and ethnonationalism apparently does.
Ethnonationslism has no place in the United States, and is anathema to the very soul of this nation.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Ethnonationalism, as described by DSR so recently, clearly wasn't a priority for white people importing black slaves like it was going out of style. (Which, as it turns out, it was.)Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia
Lol. The men who built this country had “whites only” as a requirement to be a citizen. Apparently the creators of America went against the very soul of America.
Here’s a question to everyone in this thread. Is it wrong for Israel to restrict immigration to only those ethnically Jewish? Is it wrong for Poland to want to have strict immigration to preserve a Polish population? Is it wrong for Japan to want to keep a majority Japanese population? Is it wrong for Mexico to want to stay majority Mexican?
Yes as labor not citizens. In terms of who could be a citizen it was white only, and also no, the international slave trade ended early on. Jefferson in particular wrote on abolition that we needed to give them a separate nation once slavery was abolished as the two groups were incompatible and it would inevitably lead to genocide. I’m softer than that and think it’s possible to be compatible within the same state but it requires mutual respect and a degree of separation generally. If you think that’s white nationalist then that’s what our country was founded on.
Okay but what about their immigration policy and some of the others I listed?
I would admit that all else being equal ethnic groups tend to keep to themselves of their own accord. But it's a much more ambitious claim to say that no pressures short of "government-corprate meddling" can persuade them to intermingle. I don't think that's true.
Yugoslavia exploded damn quick and those people were not very disparate all things considered. Pretty much all multiethnic empires had a lot of de facto or de jure segregation. Famously when the Romans allowed the Feoderati and the Germans to settle as full and autonomous groups it ultimately spelled their death as these groups broke apart from the larger pan Roman Empire to form their own, smaller, nations carved out of it with their own ethnic groups dominating.