Problems with Ethno-States

Dissent/alt-right bloggers such as Vox Day and Ram Z Paul talk about the need for ethno-nationalism, as opposed to civic nationalism. The former, unlike the latter, believes that a nation should be united by a common genetic/biological lineage, rather than an idea or ideal (the so-called ‘proposition nation’). But it is also opposed to interventionism, globalization, immigration/migration, and imperialism. This means that all nations should have an equal right to exist and self-determination, yet separate at the same time, analogous to the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine of US law under Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, in which the “U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racially separate facilities, if equal, did not violate the Constitution. Segregation, the Court said, was not discrimination.” Ethnic minorities would have to , presumably, return to their designated nations, so Chinese-Americans may have to return to China, Israeli-Americans return to Israel, etc., if such ethno-nationalism was ever ratified. The problem with this is immediately obvious, not only because of the logistical problems of having to coordinate such a large movement of peoples and the obvious resistance that will ensue, but many people are of mixed ancestry. What if someone is 50% German and 50% English/Scottish/Irish. Os 25% Chinese, etc. Which ethno-nation would they choose? Why do we need ethno-state when countries already exist that serve a similar function. Italy, for example, is for Italians. Why do we need a second state on top of that. It seems redundant. Or maybe what Vox means is, Italy will become an ethno-state and in doing so expel non-Italians and close its self off to immigrants.

But the even bigger problem with the ethno-state model is it is inherently utopian and makes unrealistic assumptions that are unsupported by history and reality. It assumes that every nation will recognize the equality and right to self-determination of every other nation, without any one nation defecting from this implicit [without the UN or some other convention, all governments and leaders would somehow agree to this] pact of non-imperialism and non-interventionism. What are the odds that all nations will cooperate, indefinitely? Likely zero. As soon as a nation defects, the whole thing falls apart: without any sort of mediating force that can oversee these nations and punish defectors, the end result may be total war and the destruction of weaker, defenseless nations by stronger nations. What also happens if two nations, A and B, are engaging in trade, but nation C attacks B, which are both much weaker than A. Does it not behoove A, in order to protect its own economic interest and its ally, to intervene on behalf of B and attack and invade C even though it has not been invaded? Non-interventionist policy means that peaceful nations are at the mercy of a more powerful aggressor, that can act with impunity knowing that other nations are bound by adherence to non-intervention. In much the same way a petty robber may be dissuaded and deterred by the presence or threat of police, so may a misbehaving nation be dissuaded by the equivalent of a global police. In this case, it is the US. One can make the case that the pretense of a global superpower that acts as a mediating force, that being the US, can actually help protect isolationist nationalist interests.