Ethnostatism is a fine word, but it is too fine for some purposes. Due to the lack of an existing, broader term for “A state in which citizenship is available only to members of a particular identity,” it seems fair to birth a new one out of pseudolatin to fit the bill. “Idemo,” from Latin’s “idem” for “the same,” and “state” for, well, state. The “o” between idem and state simply included for the purposes of making the word more pleasant to say, with no concern towards grammar. This broader word can describe an ethnostate, a nation state as well, but at the same time it can describe states for identities that fall outside the classification of a nation.
Defensive Idemostatism refers to the idea of an idemostate as a fortress for its people against mistreatment abroad as opposed to the idea of an idemostate as a culmination of the exceptionalism of its people. A prime example of this is the State of Israel and its Zionism. One could as well construe the Mormon settlements in Deseret as a Defensive Idemostatist project predating Israel, as their flight to their Zion was spurred on by anti-Mormon bigotry in the east. Most recently, the aims of certain groups of Black nationalists of the 60’s-70’s would most certainly fit within this categorization. However, there is a caveat to this concept. An idemostate may appear both exceptional and defensive in its language. This is why it is important to consider the reality of the situation. Is a white idemostate truly defensive? Unlikely. There are few places one would face oppression for being white. Certainly, a white nationalist project in the United States should be classified as exceptional idemostatism. Long ago, one could even label the Italian ethnic enclaves ruled by the mob as very small defensive idemostates, as Italians (Considered non-whites at the time) at one point faced oppression from the whites of the time. Today, obviously that would be different as the contexts in which such a project would exist has changed.