discoursedrome
asked:
It seems like the practical problem with having lots of little theme-park ethnostates is that polities can't really help warring on or playing dominance games with their neighbours. If they're part of a big liberal union they don't function very well as theme-park ethnostates, but if they're not, they'll probably be forced into war with their neighbours just because of realpolitik, tribalism, and resource scarcity issues.

It’s a good question.

In terms of breaking the whole US up into little theme park ethnostates it’s definitely worthy of greater consideration.

However, in the context of what likely brought this to your mind just now, the tiny white nationalist theme park ethnostate (and corresponding black nationalist theme park ethnostate) would be small enough that they’d be effectively protected from invasion by being right next to the United States, and would benefit from access to American markets and infrastructure, so it doesn’t need much realpolitik maneuvering.

For my purposes, the tiny WN ethnostate exists for three purposes:

  • Remove WNs from political influence in the country (and the resulting media firestorms/streetfights/crimes/etc)
  • Gather experimental information
  • Increase viability of Exit as an option in polities where whites have become at-risk minorities (such as Zimbabwe redistributing farmland)

I don’t actually want to live in the Principality of Whitopia.  (In fact, I haven’t disclosed on this blog whether I would even be eligible.)  

The America I grew up in, and the America I believe in, is multiracial.

However, I also support the creation of more city-states as political experiments in general, even for philosophies that I think will fail.