Singapore is a step up from most countries, but I still wouldn’t want to live there—sure, it’s safe and not communist, but as far as I’ve heard, those are its only redeeming values. Since there are safe ethnostates that aren’t communist, that still looks like a superior model.
Me neither, but I think in general NRx likes Singapore—does it not?
Because they’re libertarian and from American cities.
Libertarianism leads them to fail to look beyond “safe and not communist”; being from American cities leads them to think that’s a high bar. Which it is for America, but America’s political situation is insane.
In general, ethnostates look like a Europe-specific phenomenon to me.
In addition to Japan and China, both Koreas and Mongolia.
(North Korea and Mongolia aren’t counterexamples; they were Communist puppet states.)
I am not sure what you are getting at, can you expand..?
@sarahdoingthing would be able to explain this better than I can, but Moldbug consistently ignores questions of social life, identity, and the rites.
Safe is preferable to unsafe, and not communist is preferable to communist—and the possibility of a social life is preferable to atomization, and a stable identity is preferable to anomie and lack of context, and so on.
Not only that, they also are a relatively recent phenomenon. The Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn’t an ethnostate either. AFAICT ethnic nationalism mostly dates back to Romanticism.
“The U.S. has numerous failures” is beyond dispute. “The failures of the U.S. are caused by its unique multicultural, multiracial, and multinational characteristics” is a lot harder to defend.
Yes, as it should, because unless you want to go into specifics there is no statement both true and general that you can make.
Note, though, that the “standard” view says “no failures of the US are caused by any characteristics of races and cultures” (with the possible exception of white men being just evil) :-/
Singapore is not an ethnostate.
Singapore is a step up from most countries, but I still wouldn’t want to live there—sure, it’s safe and not communist, but as far as I’ve heard, those are its only redeeming values. Since there are safe ethnostates that aren’t communist, that still looks like a superior model.
Me neither, but I think in general NRx likes Singapore—does it not?
In general, ethnostates look like a Europe-specific phenomenon to me.
Because they’re libertarian and from American cities.
Libertarianism leads them to fail to look beyond “safe and not communist”; being from American cities leads them to think that’s a high bar. Which it is for America, but America’s political situation is insane.
In addition to Japan and China, both Koreas and Mongolia.
(North Korea and Mongolia aren’t counterexamples; they were Communist puppet states.)
I am not sure what you are getting at, can you expand..?
Both are states now, but historically their statehood varied.
In any case, I can see the advantages of a single ethnicity, I’m just not sure that they override everything else.
@sarahdoingthing would be able to explain this better than I can, but Moldbug consistently ignores questions of social life, identity, and the rites.
Safe is preferable to unsafe, and not communist is preferable to communist—and the possibility of a social life is preferable to atomization, and a stable identity is preferable to anomie and lack of context, and so on.
Japan. Also China for a looser notion of “ethnostate”.
True. China, actually, is a stronger example since Japan is nicely isolated geographically.
And speaking of pragmatic forms of government, Japan, um, has problems. China, too, of course.
Until western contact, China had no other state of comparable power to define itself against.
Not only that, they also are a relatively recent phenomenon. The Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn’t an ethnostate either. AFAICT ethnic nationalism mostly dates back to Romanticism.
It can be argued that the U.S. is not an ethnostate either.
No “it can be argued” about it—it isn’t. And its resulting failures should be obvious.
“The U.S. has numerous failures” is beyond dispute. “The failures of the U.S. are caused by its unique multicultural, multiracial, and multinational characteristics” is a lot harder to defend.
How about “some failures of the US are caused by some characteristics of races and cultures in the US”?
Then it becomes a trivial statement, the scope of “some” being adjusted to the preconceptions of every individual reader.
Yes, as it should, because unless you want to go into specifics there is no statement both true and general that you can make.
Note, though, that the “standard” view says “no failures of the US are caused by any characteristics of races and cultures” (with the possible exception of white men being just evil) :-/