Excellent comments on a McKinstry article in The Express, where he has obviously been paid his danegeld.
Ethnonationalism is not racism.
It is the belief that each culture should run it's own affairs, in accordance with it's own cultural beliefs and practices.
Ethnonationism is the opposite of colonization.
It's hypocritical to consider Gandhi a hero for restoring an ethnonational India, and to consider the Dali Lama a hero for advocating an ethnonational Tibet, and then slam Griffin for the same.
Ethnonationalism is promulgated in the 'United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples', and is the same belief that forms the basis for Nationality law worldwide, i.e. the worldwide norm of citizenship based on blood and ethnic-based rights (Jus Sanguinis and Lex Sanguinis) rather than where your parents happen to be (Jus Soli).
Ethnonationalism is the traditional legal interpretation, social custom, and cultural expectation of the overwhelming majority of the peoples and nations of the world, as evidenced by it's worldwide predominance in each nations nationality law, it's prevalence in international treaties (right of return), and it's advocacy (exaltation, really) by the UN.
Ethnonationalism is the recognition that almost all people self-segregate by culture.
The ethnonationalist acknowledges, in the face of overwhelming evidence that supports it, that race is the primary determinant of which culture a person takes up.
The ethnonationalist refuses to deny that, in any place with 2 or more races, self-segregation by race gradually becomes more prevelant and more entrenched, and eventually manifests as cultural 'disputes', which eventually evolve into a war for separate, race/ethnic-based States.
Ethnonationalism acknowledges that the ethnic-based State is therefore, the natural and inevitable outcome of multiple, self-segregated cultures in one place.
Where separate races are present, the ethnonationlist promotes the melting pot—everybody assimilates into one culture, the opposite of multiculturalism. It's hyprocritical to promote a policy of cultural diversity while insisting on it's opposite—assimilation.
The ethnonationalist recognizes that, if you fail to enact a policy that PREVENTS the ethnic cleansing of your culture—i.e. prevents mass immigration by non-assimilatible people, then you must inevitably, at some later, unknown point, rely on State-sponsered ethnic cleansing, aka PARTITION, to 'fix' the problem caused by your govts lack of foresight, by implementing ethnonationalism by force, to RESTORE your culture in a separate, smaller portion of your former Nation.
When you accept the fact that Britain, France, the US, many other nations, and the EU and the UN so often end up FORCING the very same ethnonational State that you condemn in Griffin, i.e. State-sanctioned ethnic cleansing, aka PARTITION, to create ethnonational states (such as we did in India-Pakistan and Palestine-Israel, the French did in sectarian-divided Lebanon, and others did to separate ethnic groups in Serbia-Kosovo/Bosnia, in Georgia-Russia, in Czech-Sudetenland, in Kurdish-Turkey and Greek-Cyprus and ongoing in the Philippines ARMM), then perhaps you will see the foolish hypocricy inherent in this condemnation of an ethnonationalist, and come to accept, as we have, that it is a far, far, far better public policy to cherish and preserve the Ethnostate that you have, than to intentionally engineer multiple, separate and incompatible ethnic-based cultures that will, on some future day, most certainly consolidate and fight against you in a gruesome, **** civil war to divide it.
Sammie Hall, law & analytics