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

I agree that the 'silent majority' is useless because they're inactive though, yes.

Now keep in mind, I don't have the exact stats for that shitty decision, but I do for /other/ shitty decisions.

@Arch-Fiend That's becuase jews pressure the leades to.

There are even some decisions that legislators will firewall no matter what

Such as federal legalization of dope

Yeah.

Swaths of people have been petitioning the feds for fuckin' /years/ and jack shit gets done.

I would say 'they need to vote in different people then', but we both know this isn't going to happen so long as the majority is politically inactive and uneducated.