If you are familiar with the Alt-Right, no doubt you have heard talk of an ethnostate, many would even say the desire for an ethnostate is what defines the Alt-Right. The interesting thing about this is the talk of an ethnostate is rarely brought up by those in the Alt-Right, when in a debate, it is their opponents that constantly bring this up as a way to delegitimize the Alt-Right, not just on the idea itself but on the prosses leading to the creation of an ethnostate in particular. The argument is always, “You will have to use violence to achieve it and therefore you are condoning and promoting violence by advocating for an ethnostate!” This is, of course, intellectual dishonesty because there are many positive things in life one could want to achieve without wanting the negative that can occur along the way to achieving them and what is actually being talked about here is the actions causing others who oppose you achieving this committing acts of violence. The same argument could be made to a kid on the playground, which would be something like this… “Tommy if you stop giving Tyrone your lunch money, you know he will become violent, therefore if you stop as well as talk others into no longer handing over their money, you are condoning and even promoting violence because the violence will come as a result of your actions, therefore no longer handing over your money is an immoral and hateful act”. Beyond this, the question of “compared to what?’ should always be asked. Violence is happening right now in the current state as a result of living in a multiracial society. Therefore the narrative that is trying to frame the conversation into an act that can bring about violence vs no violence should be totally rejected.

I have seen many in the Alt-Right touch on parts of what I talked about earlier in these conversations about an ethnostate, some a lot more convincingly than others but there is one argument I have not seen anyone in the Alt-Right make, at least not coherently enough for it to be as common as it should be. I will attempt to present that argument now.

Those who oppose the idea of an ethnostate or working to change the demographics of a Country in favor of whites should be asked, “before the 1970’s the United States was around 90% white, how did the demographics change to whites only being around 65% of the population?” There are a few answers to this, the biggest reason by far is the 1965 immigration act and other policies that were set in motion to favor non-whites at the expense of whites and others that downright discriminate against whites while promoting non-whites. The question then should be, “Did this lead to violence?” We know for a fact what was done worked in favor of changing the demographics, so why couldn’t the same thing be done in reverse? If it was acceptable to implement the policies that changed the demographics at the expense of whites, why wouldn’t it be acceptable to implement the same policies in favor of whites? Whites have been expected to accept the changes that worked against them and those who violently opposed those changes were condemned as hateful, so why would it be immoral of whites to expect non-whites to accept changes that work against them and why wouldn’t the non-whites who opposed those changes likewise be condemned as hateful? Nothing would have to be done to non-whites that weren’t already done to whites. Government policies lead to the change in demographics, we already have a blueprint of how to do it because we have witnessed the effectiveness of the policies over the last 50 years, There is no reason not to believe that same blueprint wouldn’t work in reverse. And the desire to use that same blueprint in favor of whites can be no more immoral than already having used it in favor of non-whites.