Message from @Arch-Fiend
Discord ID: 431248626824642569
I didn't say they were pristine, but they would be far better off without crowds of middle-eastern migrants leeching off of their welfare systems and committing a bunch of crime.
they are neolibs
about as far from ideolistic as you can get besides nihilism
The migrant crisis is about an eternal force coming into these countries and ruining them, but these countries functioned just fine on their own without being sabotaged. That's not a weakness of the system or the country's populace, just those that hold the reins.
Besides, aren't these countries part of the EU, which is a body unelected by the populace of it's member countries?
the people whom dictate the direction of the governments of those nations and their economic union were elected by someone and were there before those people directed the nations to accept uncontroled immigration
Ultimately, those people made the decisions that they did once they were elected in.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Well, almost always...
so not very functional toward the well being of the nation
dispite the high iq
I was just using a civil war as an example of where ethnostates might fail to properly correct for cultural issues that run deeper than mere race. It's a pretty big one and no, I'm not explicitly stating that no ethnostate can have a civil war. Just an example of instabilities that do not require multiculturalism as a factor.
The smaller ones are really pretty hard to point out, some are easier
Well, yeah, people will always have a reason to fight amongst each other, you can't change that.
i think ethno can have its defintion broadened beyond race in order to cover for other cultural problems, consitering ethnicity isint race and ethnicity actually does cover culture
Isn't an ethnostate supposed to mean less infighting?
Less, but not 'none.'
Violence is going to occurr one way or another.
Keep in mind I did have the african countries in my head when I was establishing this but it can extend to pretty much any race
A monoracial society has less infighting than a multiracial society.
I just don't accept that a society wasn't functioning properly just because it was sabotaged by a few from within.
an ethnostate is supose to use segregation where communication breaks down and war wishes to be avoided when a problem is deemed to be caused from a lack of social coesion of its population
A few from within?
The jews.
People that are pro open-borders like Trudeu, Merkel, communists, etc.
OK but it's clearly not just them
There are large swaths of the population that don't understand that a massive influx of economic migrants is detrimental
Minus the sabotage, were the country allowed to carry on like normal, there is little to no risk of collapse; in fact, the fact that it took something like the migrant crisis to actually bring these countries down to the risk of breaking down is pretty telling in and of itself.
If it was the majority would you call it "A Few from within"?
in theory a monoracial society would have less differences in the population in order to cause conflict with eachother, but just the same europe has been at war with itself for 10 thousand years
It's not the majority.
The thing is Jews have promoted open borders and multiculturalism.
How much of the German population actually supported the Nazis during their rise to power? 3%? Well, that didn't stop them now, did it?
What if it was close to a majority? What if it was 20 percent? Is that still a few?
thing is europeans have adopted open borders and multiculturalism
What's the `few` when we're talking about emotionally driven cocksuckers making shitty decisions?
I agree a vangard leads a country not the majorty it just depends who leads the country.
whos the fool, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?
yes
Those that are actually in the positions of power capable of effecting the change they want, I would say.
The population is, though, by petitioning the gov't that they want to cry over haji babies