(This hot take was inspired by a recent debate about white nationalism between Sargon of Akkad and Richard Spencer)
Regarding the ethno-nationalism debate:
The question is NOT whether there SHOULD be ethno-states or ethno-nations, or whether it's morally justified to deport non-members of a country's ethnic majority.
Ethnic homogeneity, like poverty, is the natural condition. Preference for genetic proximity is why you care more about your own kids and family members than the kids and family members of other people. Without it, parents wouldn't rear their children and HUMANITY LITERALLY WOULDN'T EXIST. Culture is transmitted through physical proximity, and physical proximity is almost always a result of genetic proximity. Almost all of the exceptions to this generalization are a result of government intervention and forced multiculturalism, the modern iteration of which is mass migration -- a phenomenon that's only possible at its current scale when governments monopolize the production of territorial defense, bar competitors from entering that particular market, redistribute taxpayer money to latecomers, and then stand down against invasion.
So no, that's not the question. The question is whether uninvited latecomers should have the right to provoke physical conflicts with or trespass against ethnically homogeneous groups of people for no other reason than that they're ethnically homogeneous. Peripheral to that question is another one: does anyone have the moral right to use the state to import mass quantities of economic migrants and socialize the cost thereof?
Given that ethnic homogeneity is the natural condition and the result of peaceful, voluntary action (child rearing and family raising), the burden of proof for morally justifying acts of trespass against ethnically homogeneous groups and their communities is greater than the burden of proof for morally justifying leaving them alone. Appeals to government visa, immigration, and "birthright citizenship" programs don't satisfy this burden of proof because government programs likewise constitute, and are precipitated by, acts of trespass. Receiving a blessing from another trespasser when you trespass doesn't morally justify your act of trespass, nor does it justify socializing the costs associated with your presence in the community on which you imposed yourself.
Fetishists of multi-culturalism like to imagine that their preference for institutional trespass is the moral high ground because they are emotionally wed to the idea of not excluding or deporting uninvited latecomers. They are enamored with what they perceive as an observed benefit (the government not using physical force against trespassers) and completely averse to acknowledging the hidden costs (institutionalized trespass, diminished utility of infrastructure, dilution of culture, larger government, increased national debts -- all of which constitute the use of government force against people who are already members of the community.) Accordingly, they attempt to reverse their burden of proof for this preference by construing deportation as an act of preemptive racism and aggression. However, in order to accomplish this, they must necessarily pretend that:
- It isn't trespass to enter a country without the permission of the people who will be trespassed against and forced to pay the associated costs.
- Ethnic homogeneity justifies acts of trespass, but only when the homogeneous group in question is white.
Any arguments in favor of forced association will thus necessarily, even if not intentionally, invoke one or more of the following post-modernist / deconstructionist / cultural Marxist / social justice narratives:
- Non-whites are "intersectional victims" of "whiteness" and "systemic oppression" because of their "historical disadvantages" in and outside of white countries.
- Race and ethnicity are social constructs.
- There's no such thing as white people.
This is why there's no functional difference between Sargon of Akkad and Yvette Falarca, or between Destiny, Larken Rose, and any random gossip columnist at HuffPo -- at least on this issue.
Diversity and multi-culturalism are government programs; ethnic homogeneity is not. The former constitute dysgenics and the forced redistribution of wealth; the latter constitutes the spontaneous order which emerges when governments don't impose ethnically dissimilar latecomers on the domestic population against their wishes. The motives for wanting to exclude latecomers therefore DO NOT MATTER because exclusion of latecomers is a nation's prerogative. The forced multi-culturalism we have now in western civilization is the result of government intervention and is not the demonstrated preference of the ethnic majority. It is therefore not possible to advance an argument against ethno-homogeneity without simultaneously mounting a defense of the current totalitarian police state and status quo.
Governments love multi-culturalism because it destroys social trust. Lower social trust means higher demand for government. It might seem counter-intuitive on its face, but those who oppose deportations and ethnic homogeneity are therefore cheerleaders for big government despite their ardent claims to the contrary.
Interesting post
"Governments love multi-culturalism because it destroys social trust"
Basically, let's spend more money on police instead of removing one kind of people that don't fit in and are toxic.