Debunking the White Ethno-State

"Because uniting all human races is more empirically and historically possible, and probable"

No, it isn't. It can't happen. Not with different races and not with the same race. Which is why your delusional ethno-nationalist philosophy fails historically.

"Lol. Well, which is it? Advanced east Asian societies like Korea and Japan are some of the most developed economies, and have the least violent crime in the world. Moreover, there are many, many, studies that show homogeneous societies in general have more trust, and less crime and corruption (and virtually none that suggest the opposite). Even marxist scientists like Putnam have to sit on their overwhelmingly contradictory findings for years, because they can't handle their own findings."

I not once denied that homogeneous societies are less crime ridden; and I have nothing but admiration for the innovative prowess of heavily over-homogeneous societies like the great Japan. So the studies that show that homogeneous societies are great innovators is no surprise. The problem is that you're construing a multitude of variables and relaying them as causative and not correlative or unearthing the variability of such analysis. Ie: just because homogeneous societies are less crime ridden doesn't mean that homogeneity is directly causative level of stability. Even if such factors are correlative.

Also, even if homogeneity means more stability then so fucking what? Who's to say humans, in all of our adaptable beauty, can't create some multi-ethnic world where everyone is of the same cultural background? Without the discrepancies of black urban culture, poverty, wage slavery, etc. Things are deterministically so at the present because of the past. but that doesn't mean factors cannot fluctuate for a better or worse deck of cards in the near or far future. humans are versatile.

"Are (some) human societies about to regress back to tribal societies, after millennia of progress?"

Doubtful. But that doesn't negate that our violent tendencies are eroded. They're just kept at bay thanks to the benefits of modern society and its globalized educational network.

" No one denies tribalism superseded race in prehistory, as no one had context beyond their immediate geography or village, let alone a global context for "race""

Which is precisely my point, dude. This whole 'kinship' argument of a sense of closeness to your own 'race' is anthropologically inaccurate, and quite frankly, bullshit. The paradox to this extrusion is the fact that these homogeneous societies came to be was by the very suspicions and aggression of each other of the same race in the first place!

""You can't predict the distant future, why challenge this unfounded popular religion on humanity that has been destroying your societies for 60 years?""

You're absolutely right. No one can predict the future. But if there's one thing that the past has taught us is that history does repeat itself.

"So, civilization is a recent development that allowed us to transcend violent tribalism. But now we should just allow the mixing of any and all "cultures," because it's only been around for a short time?"

Not really. Nor was that my original assertion. I was speaking on the basis to the small time-frame of such societal stability. Without cultural mixing, I doubt any of these homogeneous societies - both present and historical - would even exist.

also, there's nothing wrong with cultural mixing if its secular and non-religious. I feel right-wing quacks [along with left wing dolts] falsely conflate multiculturalism with religious as the byproduct vector to multicultural mechanisms. Which is obviously fallacious. There's nothing wrong with cultural diffusion if it's secular and assimilated.

/r/DebateAltRight Thread Parent