Is it worse to have a state without a nation, or a nation without

File: YmI4MmQ5ZWNjMSMvSl9aS0ZNanNHbW5RbzVCOFg1YmZIWVA3cmtrPS83NXg0ODA6NTY4NXgzMzY5LzE2MDB4OTAwL2ZpbHRlcnM6Zm9ybWF0KGpwZWcpOnF1YWxpdHkoODApL2h0dHBzOi8vczMuYW1hem9uYXdzLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ltaWMtaW1hZ2VzL2l0bGs3b29nZzgwOGtqOXRs.jpg (124KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1600x900px

Alright guys, what do you think; is it worse to have a state without a nation, or a nation without a state. Normies often conflate states with nations, but we should no better than that here.

But just to add some clarity, the Kurds are an example of a nation without a state, and Brazil is an example of a state without a nation.

Both situations are less than ideal, but I think it's worse to have a state without a nation. If you have a nation, you can always create a state in your own image and interests whenever you have control over territory. However, if you have no nation, then whatever state you attempt to build is going to be a disaster, since it won't be a logical outgrowth of anything natural, won't be created for the purpose of protecting a people, and will function primarily by setting the various peoples it governs at odds with one another in order to consolidate power.

But that's my take, what do you guys think?