Is Ethno-nationalism a rational ideology?

That bluepill is the second sentence of your redpill.

>self-determinism is bad

Yes and no. Thinking a state has existed in genetic isolation since time immemorial, and should remain closed off to the world in every sense, is ahistorical and unrealistic (e.g. The BNP thinking Britons are part of a Nordic masterrace that founded Ancient Egypt, Carthage, Rome and Greece, and should therefore spurn anyone from outwith Northern and Western Europe).

However, ethnicity and culture are inextricably linked. A person born in the US to an Italian father and a Gambian mother will take an interest in those two states, feel a loyalty to both states, and their personality/character will be influenced by the culture[s] of those two states as a result of parental influence. This is also influenced more by a father than a mother, and this is even true of Judaism which is supposedly passed through the maternal line. That's why all cultures stigmatise in-female, out-male relationships far more than in-male, out-female ones.

congratulations, this is the single dumbest post I've read all day

>Rational
>Ideology

America can be partitioned to a lot of ethno-states. Maybe they should do it. Like, instead of Alabama, Mississippi, etc., you get White State, Black State, etc. I'm sure it would be better. Of course, just because it's the home of one race doesn't mean it's completely closed off to others. It just mean that that one race is preserved there, as the majority and the one in power, kinda like Japan.

You're right, but what happens if they don't? You call them traitors? Are they not allowed to lose their ethnicity nor choose one?

Hitler was a total moron.
That's all.

>>self-determinism is bad
*self-determination
It really depends on where you want to draw the line. Self-determination is more or less a modern concept born from Woodrow Wilson during/after WWI and initially only referred to the establishment of nation-states in Europe (e.g. Poland) in the aftermath of the breakup of the old empires. "Self-determination" along ethnic lines for non-Europeans is something that has been given lip service but never actually taken seriously by the great powers, because of economic concerns and neo-colonialism.
But after WWII we are left with a curious situation where these concepts of ethnicity/ethno-nationalism and self-determination are far more relevant to the third world than Europe, but again are only really given lip service by the great powers where it suits their interests.
/pol/ wants what they *think* is a return to the status quo ante bellum, where "white" ethno-nationalism is at the forefront in European politics/relations. I'm not saying either system is good or bad, but for my money renewed ethno-nationalism in Europe would lead to further conflict and I think I speak for many of my fellow Europeans when I say the concept of so-called "white" ethno-nationalism is alien to us. We identify as French, Italian, German, but we do not identify ourselves with the colour of our skin as American /pol/acks do.

>Hitler was a total moron.
Not true. Hitler was sent by God to punish the Jewish people for (((their))) transgressions. The bible clearly states this would happen, and he was the one to fulfill the prophecy.

Humans are a hierarchical species with tribal instincts and there is no way around this. Stop trying to "eliminate class and culture" to make everyone equal and happy or whatever marxist bullshit your professor told you was possible

>Humans are a hierarchical species with tribal instincts and there is no way around this
I never said otherwise.
I'm not a Marxist and I didn't say anything about class or culture either. Stop tilting at windmills, /pol/ack

I'm not sure. All of my ancestors come from the same island, Britain, so I've never been in the position to try to 'find' an identity.

The scale of migration we see today is unlike anything in human history. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in Britain over the course of centuries, and the highest estimate for their numbers is around 250,000. Net migration (not gross) to the UK now surpasses that each year.

The Anglo-Saxons were outnumbered, but their culture came to dominate the region. Even today, 1,600 years after they began migrating here, we have three distinct nations - England Wales and Scotland - in Britain. The genetic evidence proves that the English, Scottish and Welsh are pretty evenly matched in terms of their Anglo genetic heritage (30-40%). Yet cultural boundaries remain.

I find that the more culturally-alike a migrant is, the more easily they integrate. It sounds obvious, but we hear often that the Commonwealth binds us together with our former dominions, that is provides a cultural similarity. Absolute nonsense. Second and third generation migrants from Jamaica, Pakistan, etc are less integrated into British society than their Hungarian, Polish, Serbian counterparts.

People with, say, a French mother are more integrated than those with Bermudan mothers. It is a result of pre-existing commonalities, in terms of Christianity, in terms of Western trains of thought, in terms of European social norms.

All I would ask for is a decrease in migration rates and a greater emphasis on native culture. Not necessarily an absolute stop on everything and the resurrection of concentration camps.

there is no such thing as "rationalism"

Yes if you're a zionist jew

>Not necessarily an absolute stop
Except with places like Britain that's precisely what you need to be able to integrate what you already have, and even then it would be a huge task requiring a radical change of minset in the native people which is simply not happening.

What would concentration camps do for Britain?

hey co-ethnicity what you doing?

Actions are or not rational in relation to a subjective end. So it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

I'm dumb. What's that gif supposed to mean?

Not him but:
>jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
Ironically, I've seen /pol/ post this as a confirmation of the rationality of ethnocentrism, but it is a suboptimal outcome compared to humanitarianism in the game.

Anglos >>>>>> all other whites

Prove me wrong

humanitarian falls apart once the rent-seekers out-number the contributors.

They're ugly

>it is a suboptimal outcome compared to humanitarianism in the game
That's not what the abstract in the link you posted says. And not what the gif shows in the latter half.

I'm not talking about the equilibrium, I'm talking about the optimum.
Also, while that does happen, it's not the relevant factor:
>Mediation analysis indicates a strong, inverse direct relation between ethnocentric and humanitarian frequencies during the last 698 cycles, after population saturation, that is not mediated by selfish free-riders.
Also, it seems arbitrary that ethnocentrics don't cooperate with rent seekers of their ethnic background but humanitarians do cooperate with rent seekers, but whatever.

Learn the difference between equilibrium and optimal outcome. The abstract explicitly says this is a case of prisoner's dilemma.

German-Americans are not an ethnic group, just a genetic-origin group. Don't make me post plastic paddy memes.

A bold statement, wow. How do you live carrying around such outsized courage? Around you, other men must shrink in the knowledge of their moral inferiority and plain lack of cojones.

They all whisper in awe, "There's the man who called Hitler a moron on an anonymous board on the internet."

>(ignoring that most blacks have had ancestors living in the US longer than most whites)?

In what way would that be relevant? A nation is supposed to prioritize the interests of the founding stock i.e. the people it was primary created by and for.

>white nationalism

who gives a shit? white people deserve to be wiped out desu, the faster the better

cool it eichenwald

White isn't an ethnicity

Who is traitorousness master race here?

All nations have been formed around racial/religious/cultural/ethnic ties so yes.

In either extreme multicultural communist or capitalist systems you lose any representation since you do not belong to a community and have no ties to your countrymen beyond citizenship, which itself becomes merely a bureaucratic status.

Then you're left seeking identity elsewhere, good modern examples are pop culture or sexual identity.

No. Especially in the methods to achieve it. I.E Rwanda Genocide, Nazi Germany, etc.

It's literally people sperging out.

>that image
>""""white"""" nationalism being intelligent

There is no such thing as "whites"

>white
>slav

What if I don't agree with either three?

Fuck off, leftypol shill

What shared heritage is there between a "White" Russian and a "White" Englishman?

What shared heritage is there between a "White" Finn and a "White" Portuguese?

They don't speak the same language, they don't share the same religion, they don't have similar beliefs in just about anything, they don't operate under similar legal systems, they have no shared history, they have no shared cultural background. An Englishman has more in common with the Indian living in Britain than he does with a Croatian. They speak the same language, live under the same laws, drive on the same wrong side of the street, and pay for alcohol in the same collectivist manner. If the Indian grew up in England, they've also probably read the same books in primary school.

The only place where a "white" is a legit imitate classification is in the new world, where it emerged as a contrast to the enslaved "blacks" and "Amerindians". People identifying themselves as "white" first only emerged after those uppity negros had the audacity to not be property.

"Ethno" isn't a very good idea in itself, since very few states are 99% of one ethnicity. I do support nationalism however.

Culture not race ok

>since very few states are 99% of one ethnicity.

Wat

>99% of the population being the same ethnicity.

Name one.

>Use Roman script
>are Christian
>have a lengthy shared history
>past rulers shared bloodlines
>shared colonization (Vikings in England, Finland, and Russia)

You blow at this.

Iceland

The CIA world factbook disagrees, with 7% "Others"

>The bible clearly states this would happen

You're a Kike that needs to cling onto lies in order to justify the existence of his state. Everything built on lies fails sooner than later.

>You're a Kike

There is neither Jew nor Gentile. Why do you hate (((them))) so much? We should hope they accept Him.

>Russians use Cyrillic which is based on Greek
>There are plenty of Christians native to Egypt, Korea and Sub-saharan Africa and the religion was founded in the Mid-East
>Russia interacted with Turkic tribes and the Ottomans far more than they ever did England
>Aristocrats share their women like it's going out of style to secure alliances, and monarchs often have no relation to the place they rule, it's why you have Germans on the English throne and had Mongols lording over Russia, Many Ottoman concubines were from the Balkans
>Everyone tries to conquer everywhere, how is this new?

...

Is this supposed to be some kind of zing?

You realize that actions have consequences, right? It's not like Britain, America, the Soviet Union and France just suddenly swooped in unprovoked or something. No shit you get ganged up on if you invade several guaranteed nations over and over again.

The point is that the criticism is retarded. If you hold the position that Hitler was essentially right, then you can hardly blame him for what other people did.

You yourself must realize that you can want a government that follows the 25 points of the NDSAP, and also feel negatively about Hitler taking a huge steaming dump on international relations as well as every country around him.

I'm fairly confident that he could have at least postponed the second world war if he didn't act as retarded as he did.

>he could have at least postponed the second world war if he didn't act as retarded as he did
It's rather questionable whether that would have put him strategically in a better situation.

His strategical situation was shit from the beginning and he himself is to blame for getting himself into that pickle.

No. He inherited the situation from WW1.

He did not. Jews, Soviets, his own allies and by extension his own staff. It was his responsibility to assure the best possible outcome, and he did a pretty shit job at it, allying with nations with no industrial capacity, very willfully getting war declared on himself (Not like it was a surprise) and then declaring yet another front because of questionable strategic decisions that he should have prevented.

Fact is, Nazi Germany could have been spun a few million different ways, and many of them would have resulted in a less terrible legacy than what it currently has.

WW2 was fought under the very same strategic constellation as WW1. This was already pre-determined. Local German politics had nothing to do with it. You might blame Hitler for how he handled the 'left' wing of the Nazi party, but that has nothing to do with WW2. Geo-strategy is larger than Hitler.

>WW2 was fought under the very same strategic constellation

And whos fault was that?

Most certainly not Hitler's who had not been in power when WW1 was fought.