The Correct Explanation of Nationalism

Love of your country above all others is race neutral.

Like everyone who has followed our founders were imperfect men and were the product of their times.

Race is simply an easy way to discriminate because racial differences are so easily observable and the extremists on both ends of the spectrum prey on our worst natures to exploit those physical differences ignoring the fact we’re all people and all Children of The Same God.


The political thinkers of the 18th and 19th Centuries undoubtedly considered their own European stock to be superior in achievements to others … although there are some interesting observations about the Chinese which shows not all of them were dogmatic.

But this just reflected the existing reality – they were living during the first stage of that great leap forward called The Enlightenment – and that was exclusively European.

Contemporary ‘biological’ theories of racial differences were not really available to them. Darwin didn’t publish until the second half of the 19th Century, and we didn’t know about genes until the 20th.

The Founders and the great men who followed them, like Lincoln, simply repeated the observable reality. There ARE hints in some of the things they said – such as qualifying statements like “the Black race in the current state of its development” – which showed that some of them at least were not the equivalent of modern-day biological determinists.

The problem is, the Politically-Correct Left has made discussion of this whole issue in all its manifestations – from the technical question of “race and IQ” to the historical judgement of men living in previous times – impossible, At least, it’s impossible to discuss it with a Leftist or liberal, who simply have a religious committment to their emotional beliefs.

As for conservatives, we will be FOOLS to do or say anything that will drive non-whites into the enemy camp. There are aspirational Black people, patriotic Black people, intelligent Black people, whose objective self-interests do NOT lie with the Identity Politics of the Hard Left. They are either already on the same side as we are, or they can be won.

Anyone who doesn’t know who some of these people are has been asleep.

1 Like

Just as important as race is in our identity, is sex. But we get along with women.
Species is more fundamental than race – race is just sub-species. We get along with dogs.

You say your fundamental identity is race. Well, what follows from that? Do you then always vote for the white person in an election, if he or she is running against a Black?

1 Like

Race is a completely human construct. All humans share more than 99.9% of the same DNA.

So do humans with chimps

No, we share a lot of the same DNA with Chimps but not the same chromosomes or genes.

Humans cannot mate with any other hominid species.

Sorry but the fallacy of human and chimp near identical DNA similarities was proven wrong a while ago. Humans have more DNA in common with a banana than with chimps.

Humans have less chromosomes than other great apes.
Fishy, fishy.

Nationalism is grossly misunderstood.
When we use the word “nation” in English, we automatically assume the central government that sits in DC.

But what about the Native American “nations”?
They fit more nicely with the concept of “nation.”

1 Like

Amazing how times change yet people fall back to th old argument.

The founding of the country there were few people in the US.

Today over 330 million people reside in the US yet some still fall back to the everyone is an immigrant and the doors should be open for anyone and everyone.

One day we will no longer be able to support the unlimited population influx as they bring little in skills and knowledge with them.

Until the last century, folks would identify as Virginians, or Texans not immediately as Americans. Since we are states united, defining a state as a political body with it’s own constitution, I contend it is equally accurate to say the United Nations of America. FWIW

1 Like

BTW, to add the requisite DNA coding to a chimp’s chromosome to evolve a human is scientifically and mathematically impossible. Any deviation from perfect would be fatal to the organism, any interbreeding with a less than equally evolved organism would revert the offspring to the original critter. Therefore one has to believe in the impossibility of not just one but two opposite sex organisms evolving at the same moment in proximity to each other, etc. etc. Not even plausible.

We have to ask our British folks here.
Is there any such thing as “British nationalism?”

I heard of “Scottish nationalism” and perhaps Welsh nationalism, but “British nationalism” doesn’t sound right.

Nationalism implies shared culture, traditions, and language, and not artificial political unity.

In some countries, let’s say Japan, the national identity with the polity sitting in Tokyo overlaps with shared culture and language, etc., but it’s an exception.

No, DC is where our “national gov’t” is but the nation is all of the states, territories, and possessions.

Indian Nations are ethnic nations, not really the same thing as all members of the tribes and other subgroups among “the nation” will be members whether they have shared geographical territories or not.

Well … yes.
So is political identity.
You share almost 100% of your DNA (in the sense you’re talking about) with Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
The ‘social construct’ thing is tricky.
Put Irish and Italians together in New York City a hundred years ago, and they’ll fight like red and black ants. Irishness and Italianness may be ‘social constructs’ but social constructs are very powerful.

Every few years, we see one African tribe slaughtering the other – or Shia’s and Sunnis bombing and killing each other. They all look alike to me.

There are almost certainly biological/neurological differences, averages, among the different human tribes, but we are still in the Dark Ages so far as understanding how the brain works.

We know there are differences among people in IQ, impulsiveness, etc… and some progress has been made on linking these to differeing distributions of certain alleles of genes… but it’s terribly complex – there are probably hundreds of genes that affect one’s IQ, each acting weakly.

And it doesn’t matter a bit! The American nation is not based on ethnicity. The Left, without thinking much about what they’re doing, are pushing hard on ‘Identity politics’; some of them are already calling for a ‘Black homeland’, and some are toying with the old idea of ‘Aztlan’, a Hispanic nation in the Southwest. (They’re ashamed of Mexico, otherwise the logical demand would be the reconquest of the lands taken from her in 1845/46.) No one really takes this seriously – both would be nightmares if they could be achieved.

But the push to think of everything in terms of race, if it continues, will make WHITE identity politics more and more respectable. And someone will arise to propound a ‘santiized’ version of this: certain people have tried, but the time was not ripe. Let’s hope it never is.

I really don’t think that’ll ever be the case. Whites are now blamed for every injustice and problem the world has known since about the year 1,500.

That being the case WIP will do little more than deepen divides and instill even more hatred from the other races.

Identity politics is pure poison and always has been.

There’s no possibility that we’ll have a purge of all non whites from N. America or Europe so one way or another we’ve got to learn how to live with one another and the only way to achieve that in the long run is to eventually end identity politics period.

I agree entirely.
We are bound together by fate. The people who want to see ethnically-based homelands are pushing us towards a cliff-edge. The Left don’t intend to start a real racial war – we are just supposed to bow down – but that’s just what they may do.

It’s actually up to the real conservatives to undercut the white supremacists and prevent them from building serious support among the white population.

1 Like

See, and there’s your work cut out for you right there. That’s a heavy lift too.

We have to walk a fine line between, on the one hand, advancing a kind of soft white chauvinism, in which we will be outbid by the racists, versus, on the other hand, yielding to the ‘whites-are-guilty’ nonsense coming increasingly from the Left. Basically, we have to say, “It’s okay to be white!” – for which we will be called white supremacists by the Left.

Our real problem is that we must reach the ‘red-pilled’ young men attracted to the ‘alt-right’, driven there by the relentless po-faced political correctness of the Left. But we’re mostly thirty or more years older than they are and don’t speak their language, don’t play video games, don’t take same sort of drugs they do, aren’t covered in tattoos. To reach them we have to learn about a whole new world and master a whole new vocabulary – ‘Gamergate’, ‘PUA’, ‘Pepe the frog’. It’s a long way from Edmund Burke and Von Mises and Russell Kirk.

Go back to the beginning of this thread and you will find several posters who are unabashedly racial nationalists – even if they have not drawn the logical conclusion from their views, which is racial war. They basically have the worldview of the hard Left, turned inside-out.

It is ok to be white, to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. In fact it’s one of the few things that we humans don’t control.

As to your second point, agreed, and again that’s a very heavy lift.

And to your last point, indeed, I’m very familiar with those on this board.

I guess so.
But looking at America today and its mass media (from outside), it almost doesn’t appear that way.