For all of you Civic Nationalists out there, please watch this video. This is probably the best and most concise definition of nationalism that I have come across. Civic nationalism is nothing but blue-pilled nationalism being sold like snake oil by grifters who want to spread the left wing message of celebrating diversity while making a buck off those who lean right.
Civic Nationalism is just a meme perpetuated by edgy cowards and exploitative financial profiteers who want to set themselves apart from mainstream right wing politics. They are simply cuckservatives masquerading as nationalists and thus refuse to acknowledge that the fundamental basis of identity is race, thus I have no respect for them.
I agree. Civic nationalism is a meme also because it doesnāt believe in CULTURE as a source of national cohesion. Multiculturalism is a common concept in civic nationalist circles. Itās why I cringe when Trump says we need MORE legal immigration. Unless the countries that these legal immigrants are coming from is Europe, and they are ethnically European, then the last thing the US needs is more immigration of any kind.
Nationalism is about loving your country and history. I donāt care about color, race or religion just fit in and respect us.
But what do you do when you wake up one day and realize these two things:
CivNats will wake up destitute some day soon, homeless and despised by a culturally atomized soup of Babel, on a continent their forefathers conquered. But they will at least be able to hold their heads high and say āat least I never saw color or religionā.
Iām with you in not caring about color/race. For the record, I find people who obsess about racial āpurityā extremely creepy. I donāt give a fig what someoneās race is if they have no problem with me or my people, and they are not causing a problem for us.
With that said, when one looks at large groupings of people, one does need to think about big-picture considerations: crime rates, IQ, levels of education, cultural characteristics and compatibility, etc. etc. etc. My greatest concern about mass migration of Muslims to the West is actually not welfarism (although there is that tooāthatās probably number two), but rather their historical animosity to the West.
Sorry, but blondie here didnāt invent a new concept of nationalism. She poorly tried to repackage the well-established definition of ethno-nationalism. The majority of political science research has found that nationalism, in general, is the primary element/foundation of extremist political ideologies that pit people against one another related to ālinesā that mark ānation statesā.
I like Orwellās distinction. Nationalism is the robotic flag-waving, patriotism is about values, conserving the ideals that you have grown up to identify with and which protect your citizenship.
Anything can become pathologized: if one pushes nationalism too far in the wrong direction, one can end up with bloody purges of āundesirableā groups, something I certainly condemn in the strongest possible terms. Moreover, as a self-proclaimed neo-reactionary, I freely acknowledge that the Liberal Nationalism referenced in this video was a profoundly de-stabilizing force in the great Austro-Hungarian Empire in particular.
On the other hand, today we are faced with a multicultural left-wing āUniversalistā ideology which essentially functions as the counter-white coalitionāor more accurately, I think, as the anti-white coalition. The essence of this is that the forces of the Left are more than happy to mobilize non-white identitarianisms (plural) against Western Whites.
I admire Orwell in many ways, but I think this formulation of his is fairly flawed. To my eye, patriotism and nationalism can become pathologically conformist in similar ways, and there is plenty of synergy in that nationalists generally see themselves as patriots.
With that said, nationalism can be valuable if your people have a valid interest or set of interests to express. Many people yearn for a world of perfect unity, a world without ātribalisticā national rivalries, but this is a pipe dream: there will always be conflicting interests, and thus there will always be conflict. Given the threat the West faces from the left, right-populist nationalism tinged with identitarianism is essentially our last best hope.
I see a lot of common ground here. Like you, I donāt care if someone is of a different race than me. Like you, I care more about ideals and values.
However, the practical reality is that statistically speaking, the natural constituency for fiscal conservatism and broadly libertarian/conservatarian ideas is whites, particularly white males. Look at how the Dems have been turning entire states blue through immigration. California used to be a Republican stronghold, but it went blue in 1992āseveral years after Reagan signed off on amnesty for a number of illegals back in '86āand it has stayed blue ever since.
I do think that we should be honest about the fact that if we want Western-style liberty, we need mostly Western people. That doesnāt mean Whites only, of courseāit simply means that in practice, we need to understand who weāre really appealing to. Of course, this is also a response to the integrally counter-White or anti-White nature of the leftist coalitional power-strategy.
Some very thoughtful replies here, facing reality squarely.
I would just say this: biology is reality. So is culture. They are frequently at war, within each of us. Although you might think biology would always triumph, the fact is that humans have managed to craft this thing we call ācultureā which can alter very powerful biological impulses.
Case in point: a thousand years, a fervent prayer on the North and East coasts of England was, āFrom the Fury of the Norsemen, O Lord, deliver us!ā Those āNorsemenā included the Danes. Today the Danes are the nicest people in the world. Their biology didnāt change.
Can ānaturalā racial antagonisms be suppressed by culture, if we do it right? The Left is now trying to open up the racial divide in America, aided by a collection of anti-Semites and white supremacists on the Far Right. They may succeed. I hope they donāt.
Note: there is a difference between noting the obviousl reality that the āordered libertyā that was born in Europe has been mainly the creation of Europeans. But look how well it has taken root in Japan and Korea. And itās making slow and uneven progress ā three steps forward and two steps back ā elsewhere in the world as well.
We must not give up on the idea of a multi-racial American Republic, re-born in part of the territory of the existing US.
Nationalism = E Pluribus Unum. It is not tribal divisiveness.
MArk 3:25 āAnd if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.ā
Was the American Republic founded just to be a trans-Atlantic England? Was there no greater political vision behind it? This is often charged by Leftist āRevisionistsā who hate America ā they want to portray the American Revolution as just a quarrel among big landowners, not different from the wars between English and French barons over pieces of real estate.
They are wrong. The men who founded America had a vision. Get out a dollar bill and look at what is written on the Great Seal. Our Founders knew they were creating a Novus Ordo Seclorum, a āNew Order of the Agesā not just another little tribal state.
*By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to Aprilās breeze unfurled,.
Here once the embattled farmers stood.
And fired the shot heard round the world."
Itās being heard still. Thatās why they wave American flags in Hong Kong.
Letās talk Constitution, because thereās a big elephant in the room in this regard : Legal definition of ānatural born citizensā.
Preamble to the Constitution : āWe the Peopleā ā¦ a collective, a nation, one might say a collective bargaining agreement enshrining the concept of nationalism.
But what type of nationalism?
If we were going to mention the US Constitution, we canāt do this without mention of the actual Law that defined Citizenship, thus allowing people to claim the rights agreed upon in the US Constitution ratified less than 2 years earlier :
Naturalization Act of 1790
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free White persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in certain states. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, stating that such children āshall be considered as natural born citizens,ā the only US statute ever to use the term. It specified that the right of citizenship did ānot descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.ā
Thus, one could argue that true paleo-conservatism was racial from the first instance it legally applied to citizens covered by this definition. Of course, times change, but by the times of Lincoln, the father of the GOP, his own interpretations were not very different :
Lincoln Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.
āWhile I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races ā that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.ā
History is history. We must accept it, and definitely learn from it, but not disrespect the opinions of learned and important leaders of this day, for they perhaps knew something we donāt about human nature. Perhaps we are fooling ourselves on many matters. Perhaps they understood that certain biological constraints inherent in non-white races would lead them to resent whites, destroying the core demographic which the US Founders and men like Lincoln obviously considered to be the agency responsible for maintaining and transmitting the particular character of this nationalism down into the present day.
I can say, in all honesty, these men were obviously wiser and more pure in their intentions to create a strong, resilient nationalism, than politicians of the modern day (demagogues and clowns).
SO, are you an adherent of the āone drop ruleā for race associations? Anyone with a even a 10x great grandparent with higher level of melanin is somehow unworthy of US citizenship?
This should always be the retort upon anyone saying we are a nation of immigrantsā¦
Who are you calling Blonde? Why donāt we just start calling you cocksucker? How would you like that? You putting people on the defensive is non starter to most here who think your just another crybaby snowflake looking for attention. Be a good little commie and run along now!
Your inability to stay on-topic is uncanny. Try clicking on the video in the OP, slick.
That would be a personal attack on a donating member, cheapskate.
Everything comes back to you with your self hatred for d-bags like you! You regularly insulting members here then turning around to cry foul is rich coming from such a hypocrite! You derailed many a topics here on this forum, so you might start by actually practicing what you are trying to preach. Trying as in you never can, which makes you the biggest hypocrite here, aside from your comrade Monte!
And you know this how commie boy? Even if it were true, do you think that entitles you to special privileges and status here?
Not really that complicated for in house a$$hates communists in this thread!
Nationalism is a system created by people who believe their nation is superior to all others. Economic nationalism prioritizes domestic businesses.
This mere definition hasnāt really changed and the ones crying and desperately trying to change this meaning are the resident communists who seek to rewrite all definitions within the narrative of moral relativism in a post modernist age!