Louder, clearer. Lower noise gates

First part again, explain the delay due to disorganized thoughts. Too low voiced

A week ago I had a debate with the Academic Agent on Michelle Catlin's channel. A debate about "the ethnostate" was pitched and I offered to be the pro-side. It was a civil and not remotely explosive debate I've heard only good things about so I decided to use it as a template for a video I had planned for a while: why I do not support Civic Nationalism and how you can argue against it. This is a topic I will probably return to so this will be a general argument against civic nationalism and for ethnonationalism, with ancillary matters to be the subject of later videos. I frame it this way because you will usually be arguing against civic nationalists who also oppose mass immigration and multiculturalism (the latter being their obvious scapegoat), and they have plenty to justify about their solution. Whicb will be a consistent theme here: knowing when the burden of proof is on them. Basically... ethnic nationalism has worked for the West since every Western Nation guarded its European Demography until the 1960s, civic nationalism hasnt had much of a run but even the initial push for immigration was couched in an idea the newcomers would become Western, which did not happen. It was not until much later in the 2000s when the idea of multiculturalism really showed up. As it stands, cultural divides DO cluster with racial and even ethnic divides so multiracialism leads to multiculturalism (at least so far)

To give the most barebrones explanation before I go into the details: I do not support civic nationalism because I do not support civic nationalists. Civic Nationalists use Civic Nationalism as a hand-wave they think needs no further justification, and usually their idea of "Western Values" (which form the basis for said civic identity) is trash. It is either too weak to be meaningful, or narrow along their partisan lines because their current year interpretation of one strain of Western Thought is what Western Civilization is all about, which can be claimed by all movements within the West.

Louder

Moreover I dont think it is worse to judge by race than to only let in people who agree with your ideas. People will have the ideas they have for whatever arbitrary reason they do based on where they're from. I guess you can say ideas are less arbitrary than race but there are still drawbacks to civic identity and advantages to ethnic identity yet unexplored:
The partisan nature of thise debate about our values makes this just a new prop to fight over by parties and interest groups, subjecting it to change and making it a fun club to browbeat those who dont conform with.
Ideological diversity is actually good, rather than this polarized situation.

You almost certainly wont be able to adequately test or convert immigrants. Another hand-wave where the burden is on them (because we dont see it now).
Strictly speaking... an ethnostate doesnt need to be 100% so if you're really uncomfortable with race there's nothing conceptually stopping you from a limited level of skilled non-white immigration. Nor is there anything stopping you from keeping out whites with dysfunctional traits. America did that when it asked for "free white men of good character". And the former is basically the practice in many East Asian nations now.

But let's get deeper and look at how one can justify these ideas, or contextualize them

A general piece of advice is to pick a few narratives to return to. Ones which either disrupt their ideas on some conceptual or practical level, or reinforce your own on some conceptual or practical level. Preferably both. Respectively...

I pointed out that any Civic Nationalism will be the result of compromise and subject to revising by cultural elites. This means your opponent's super perfect system won't be the final result implemented, but at best a component of it. Racialism should also be a component of that final product, as Societal Insurance if the multiracial experiment should fail (again).

And I used the the Elite Status of Progressives and certain intelligent groups to further reinforce this

4:00 Edit: First: Decide the Ethnostate you want.

The definition of Ethnostate, as per Wilmot Robertson who created the term, is a state which preserves ethnocultural continuity (ie the continuing existence of an ethnic group, or racial group. Semantics on this point dont matter greatly).

So this gives you a lot of freedom. It does NOT have to be 100%. 5:00 Edit A 100% white nation taking in 1 million refugees in the following years would be less of an ethnostate than a 75% White Nation who passed policy saying the nation must remain at least 70% white. We use Israel as an example after all, which is more diverse than Germany but we don't call Germany an ethnostate for obvious reason. And not even Japan (our other example) is totally pure.

So you dont have to argue for 100% and get into the debate whether that is possible or peaceful which is where the insane hypotheticals begin. We've pretty much all made peace with the fact that 100% wont happen and we dont need. The debate you want to have is if Whites deserve nations, if diversity and (anti-white) group conflict worsen nations, and if color-blindness is a good idea. The answers are Yes, Yes, and No obviously. At that point they have to concede to some level of ethnostatism.

I use the Singaporean model, where the Han must remain a supermajority but skilled immigration is permitted beyond that. You may not like this. Edit: 6:45 I like it because it is easy to defend and if society decides even more restriction is prudent it will be easy to advocate for. I also argue in an American context so I think it is the only reasonable first step (beyond maybe Free Association)

Second: Who is your opponent

Generally they will be a part of these 2. And the general narrative you should go with in my opinion Edit: 7:00

Louder:

Conservative: non-whites may be more traditional but only for their in-group and do side with xenophiliac leftists for political power. This is a losing situation for you. And the economic benefits they bring are short term. Even capable minorities like East Asians have their own nations to run as they wish and in enough respects they lag behind the West. 7:40 Edit So long term, they could screw up what we have going while White Nationalism has proven itself an essential ingredient to Western Hegemony.


Louder:

Classical Liberal: Only Whites are provably Liberal. Only Whites like free speech, libertarian economics, and open societies. It may seem contradictory but some illiberalism is needed to protect this liberal character. You dont know how to test prospective immigrants for Liberalism, or how to convert non-whites to it. Until you do... we should practice racial particularism

Third is just matter of amassing facts to defend this. You just have to show they cant do what they'd like to do, their idea of the situation we are in is wrong, or that racialism answers some important issue other methods do not in any reliable way. 8:40 edit In the description will be just that, labeled in ways I think explain what I use them for. In other videos, I will dive into those details more and if I did it here this video would be too long in my opinion.

But I can give you a general outline of what they cover and why it matters right now before the end:

Louder:
Your biggest adversary would be some Merit-based System, so it pays to know about the shortcomings of high performing groups (good way to bring in the Jews by the way). 9:20 Edit And I called this Tenative Orientalism because I focused on East Asians. Both to emulate and decry since they would be the biggest recipients of any Meritocratic System, are societies which match Western consumption habits but don't go for the same kinda of Western Individualism we think is a universal default once we sit atop Mazlowe's Hierarchy, and there are reasons to not want endless growth of them in your nation. Again, I won't object to talented migrants but within limits defined by maintaining our Eurocentric society, but limits of course. And to put a cap on this, the East Asian diaspora I singled out is the Chinese, for practical reasons. Lots will want to leave China and there are a lot of them so multitudes will be talented enough to pass merit checks.

Louder:

Next video will be on ze liberalists, within a context very similar to this one so we can return to these subjects then. Then will be a video taking a stab at why Progressives like Harry Potter in the style of a beyond amateur anthropological study. Then I think I will disentangle some confusion regarding the terms Collectivist, Individualistic, and Clannishness with Clannishness being the third wheel which screws up the current discussion. And beyond that... a look at something non-racial since I don't want to be too monomaniacal

10:42

Thank you all and have a great day. Add "and the holidays graphic"


Insane notions of what the West REALLY is:
http://cathyreisenwitz.com/western-civilization-liberalism-not-tribalism-western-civilization-worth-saving/
http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/08/31/what-the-alt-right-gets-wrong
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/30/impossible-western-civilization-white/
Virtually all political ideas came from the West, so to single these out as its true legacy is arbitrary and partisan imo.