Nationalism on the rise (Europe) [Archive]

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 08:12 AM

Ok. Stooooooooooooooop.

They are humans not beasts. Tonymontana99 if you want to talk about scum of the Earth I got a good friend here, Ted Bundy, who will be happy to meet you. And of course all of his friends.
I can't even imagine what's going on in your head for talking like this about black people.
You are definitely the monster in this story.

We, Europeans, are the most hypocrite people of this planet.
By pretending to protect our culture we are closing the doors to others humans. The truth is just that some people don't support to see their pretty white paradise of whites being infested with different people. The truth is that you are just scared Tonymontana99, that's cute.

Hate leads to destruction, so why spreading hate? Oh yes I'd be happy to dominate the planet and destroy every life form on it but there is so much great things to do with this scummy Mankind so why spreading unproductive ideals?

Black people? I'm talking about savages who share nothing in common with our ancestry, rules and way of life.

We, Europeans, are the most hypocrite people of this planet.
By pretending to protect our culture we are closing the doors to others humans. The truth is just that some people don't support to see their pretty white paradise of whites being infested with different people. The truth is that you are just scared Tonymontana99, that's cute.

Yes, goy! That's it! Hate your own people, they're mean and they deserve to be punished. Embrace multiculturalism, embrace love and tolerance! Wow, so progressive, goy! We'll become a beautiful mosaic free of hate and intolerance!

https://wizchan.org/meta/src/1437718514662.png

Vlerchan

October 17th, 2015, 08:22 AM

Black people? I'm talking about savages who share nothing in common with our ancestry, rules and way of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

That's later modern history.

The truth is just that some people don't support to see their pretty white paradise of whites being infested with different people.
Our institutions require some level of cultural and social homogeneity is the problem.

Living For Love

October 17th, 2015, 08:34 AM

Since Europe is being infested with "refugees" and Muslims, which, unsurprisingly, are already destabilizing everything and being ungrateful, we are starting to see the proud rise of a strong sense of Nationalism throughout some European countries. Parties like Sweden's Sweden Democrats and Hungary's Jobbik are rising, and with a creeping sense of unnease and intolerance building up in the streets -- most of which is due to increasingly hostile interactions between naturals and muslim immigrants --, it looks like our European brothers are awakening once again to fight for their homelands.

What are your thoughts on this?

SDU: Salute to the European youth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR-lAGj_dlQ

A new dawn of Europa - The Rise of Nationalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDgNxqI5U70

Europeans have already risen once. And they'll do it again! They'll fight for what is theirs and for freedom.
Ideologies like the ones depicted in those videos are minorities, and they're not rising as much as you might think. There are dozens of European organisations who support refugees, and I'm not just talking about NGOs like Red Cross, I'm talking about groups of ordinary people who have gathered and formed/founded organisations with the only purpose of helping the refugees. So yeah, European Nationalism is still dead, nobody here is waking up, we probably will when it's too late.

dxcxdzv

October 17th, 2015, 08:36 AM

Our institutions require some level of cultural and social homogeneity is the problem.
You mean governmental institutions and shit? Aren't there laws ruling the system and incidentally preventing from cultural/social drifts&co?
Tell me what kind of institution you are talking about.

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 08:51 AM

Ideologies like the ones depicted in those videos are minorities, and they're not rising as much as you might think. There are dozens of European organisations who support refugees, and I'm not just talking about NGOs like Red Cross, I'm talking about groups of ordinary people who have gathered and formed/founded organisations with the only purpose of helping the refugees. So yeah, European Nationalism is still dead, nobody here is waking up, we probably will when it's too late.

Well, your only Nationalist party is a pathetic fraud, so no wonder people still see Nationalism as "hurr that's waciss! xD xD". Godspeed, Portubro. It's always darkest before the dawn.

I honestly don't care anymore. I'm going to be as nihilistic as possible and just witness shit hitting the fan.

Vlerchan

October 17th, 2015, 08:53 AM

You mean governmental institutions and shit? Aren't there laws ruling the system and incidentally preventing from cultural/social drifts&co?
Laws that exist as a result of majoritarian consent yes.

Tell me what kind of institution you are talking about.
Let's start with a broad one. Democratic governance. In order for coherent governance to exist in this form it requires that we share some base assumptions about it's operations. I'm considering ideals like the separation of church and state or base civil and political rights. These ideas are required to be embedded in our political cultures to even conceive a democratic government

Then we get to having a coherent government and this required the founding of deep political culture. The belief must be maintained that people have quasi-similar goals and that distinctions in this regard can be flattened out through political negotiation. If this belief is dislodged then cold-politics become irrelevant and an attraction forms towards hot-politics - like protests and in the worst of cases revolutions - emerges.

sqishy

October 17th, 2015, 09:09 AM

Laws that exist as a result of majoritarian consent yes.

Let's start with a broad one. Democratic governance. In order for coherent governance to exist in this form it requires that we share some base assumptions about it's operations. I'm considering ideals like the separation of church and state or base civil and political rights. These ideas are required to be embedded in our political cultures to even conceive a democratic government

Then we get to having a coherent government and this required the founding of deep political culture. The belief must be maintained that people have quasi-similar goals and that distinctions in this regard can be flattened out through political negotiation. If this belief is dislodged then cold-politics become irrelevant and an attraction forms towards hot-politics - like protests and in the worst of cases revolutions - emerges.

It makes sense to me; democracy does require some institutional form to work as its theory intends.

Living For Love

October 17th, 2015, 09:29 AM

Well, your only Nationalist party is a pathetic fraud, so no wonder people still see Nationalism as "hurr that's waciss! xD xD". Godspeed, Portubro. It's always darkest before the dawn.

I honestly don't care anymore. I'm going to be as nihilistic as possible and just witness shit hitting the fan.
We don't even have a Nationalist party, and you can say the same about pretty much every Nationalist party, at least here in Europe, because people always associate Nationalism with racism and discrimination.

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 10:03 AM

We don't even have a Nationalist party, and you can say the same about pretty much every Nationalist party, at least here in Europe, because people always associate Nationalism with racism and discrimination.

Only if it's by whites. You are a "proud" and "brave" black/hispanic person if you say you love your people and are proud of your heritage, but you're called a racist if you're white and say that. Oh, well. I guess the only thing to do at thsi point is to sit back, grab some popcorn and watch all this play out. After all, neither you or me will be directly affected by it. And if we are, off to Switzerland to live with the mountain jews.

sqishy

October 17th, 2015, 10:05 AM

We don't even have a Nationalist party, and you can say the same about pretty much every Nationalist party, at least here in Europe, because people always associate Nationalism with racism and discrimination.

I don't associate Nationalism as inherently being racist or discriminate, because I think Nationalism can happen without those things, and I think that it does in most countries, least with regards to flags and the like. Being proud of one's nation does not have to imply having a dislike or hostility for those outside it.

What is a big reason to suggest that people associate nationalism with racism/discrimination, is that, in my opinion, many nationalistic views are indeed happening with racism and discrimination. In other words, nationalism is going too far. Yes, it can be said that holding one's nation as of primary importance is putting other nations down. That in itself is a big debating issue, which I would be in. However, active dislike/hatred of people outside one's nation cannot be debated, it is more or less clearly visible. I don't see how calling Muslims in Europe "an infestation" is not discriminate. What is it meant to mean, if it is not discriminate?

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 10:21 AM

I don't associate Nationalism as inherently being racist or discriminate, because I think Nationalism can happen without those things, and I think that it does in most countries, least with regards to flags and the like. Being proud of one's nation does not have to imply having a dislike or hostility for those outside it.

What is a big reason to suggest that people associate nationalism with racism/discrimination, is that, in my opinion, many nationalistic views are indeed happening with racism and discrimination. In other words, nationalism is going too far. Yes, it can be said that holding one's nation as of primary importance is putting other nations down. That in itself is a big debating issue, which I would be in. However, active dislike/hatred of people outside one's nation cannot be debated, it is more or less clearly visible. I don't see how calling Muslims in Europe "an infestation" is not discriminate. What is it meant to mean, if it is not discriminate?

The problem is that Nationalism is portrayed as racist/discriminatory by the media. And it's also sad that most "nationalists" are just neonazis and edgy teenagers. In my opinion, it's not racist or discriminatory to be proud of your country, race, heritage or culture. And it's certainly not wrong to say that you wish to live in a cultural/racial homogeneous society. Honestly, I never understood the supposed benefits of multiculturalism. The whole "it opens people to other points of view" is just a euphemism for imposing your culture to other people who may not be so receptive to it.

sqishy

October 17th, 2015, 10:34 AM

The problem is that Nationalism is portrayed as racist/discriminatory by the media. And it's also sad that most "nationalists" are just neonazis and edgy teenagers. In my opinion, it's not racist or discriminatory to be proud of your country, race, heritage or culture. And it's certainly not wrong to say that you wish to live in a cultural/racial homogeneous society. Honestly, I never understood the supposed benefits of multiculturalism. The whole "it opens people to other points of view" is just a euphemism for imposing your culture to other people who may not be so receptive to it.

I do think that parts of the media have the capacity to jump to a conclusion of nationalism being racist/discriminatory. In other words, if a country (a small densely populated one) would feel a sudden logistic/economic problem with a large influx of refugees, and it wants to close it borders in response to this, then some will say that that couuntry is discriminatory. I don't deny that. One should not jump to conclusions.

Yes, it is not racist or discriminatory to have pride in your culture, by definition. The definitions do not overlap inherently. You can have them not happen together. I talked before about flags, anthems and the like. (I still have issues with pride of one's nation and culture in itself, but it is not relevant, so I will not comment on that.)

However, I don't understand how wanting a racially homogenous society is not in some way discriminatory. What is it about foreign races that is a problem? This I want to address now.

If there is no problem with foreign races, then why is there a want to have a racially homogenous society in the first place? Homogeneity of race only coherently holds if heterogenity of race is resisted. Why is it resisted? What are the fundamental reasons? Those are my specific questions at the moment. Here I am not intending to be rhetorical (though I could be), I want to know the answers, specific to race.

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 10:55 AM

I do think that parts of the media have the capacity to jump to a conclusion of nationalism being racist/discriminatory. In other words, if a country (a small densely populated one) would feel a sudden logistic/economic problem with a large influx of refugees, and it wants to close it borders in response to this, then some will say that that couuntry is discriminatory. I don't deny that. One should not jump to conclusions.

Yes, it is not racist or discriminatory to have pride in your culture, by definition. The definitions do not overlap inherently. You can have them not happen together. I talked before about flags, anthems and the like. (I still have issues with pride of one's nation and culture in itself, but it is not relevant, so I will not comment on that.)

However, I don't understand how wanting a racially homogenous society is not in some way discriminatory. What is it about foreign races that is a problem? This I want to address now.

If there is no problem with foreign races, then why is there a want to have a racially homogenous society in the first place? Homogeneity of race only coherently holds if heterogenity of race is resisted. Why is it resisted? What are the fundamental reasons? Those are my specific questions at the moment. Here I am not intending to be rhetorical (though I could be), I want to know the answers, specific to race.

I agree that it's foolish to be proud of your country if your country has objectively done nothing to be proud of. But, for example, Portugal and the US have arguably great stories to tell (especially Portugal with its Reconquista and influence all over the world).

Regarding to racial homogeneity, I was talking more about the racial/ethnic heterogeneity that comes with importing people from third world countries/mass immigration. Of course it will destabilize a society that may have otherwise been both racial/ethnical and cultural homogeneous. People who have been long accustumed with being around people who share the same race, ethnicity and religion within their own country will arguably be not so thrilled about having dozens or hundreds of thousands of migrants swarm into their countries, speaking foreign languages and possibly disrespecting the dominant culture/religion that had already been established. And then you have race-mixing and all that thrown in the middle which kinda defeats the purpose of that "beautiful mosaic" and instead we become a brown shitstain throughout the world.

I mean, wouldn't you be sad to visit a country like Norway, Denmark or Sweden, characterized by their racial/ethnic/cultural homogeneity only to step out of the plane and seeing a bunch of -- I'll put it bluntly -- brown-skinned people speaking non-natural languages and practising non-traditional practises?
One thing is being a humble emigrant who respects his new country's culture and traditional values, another thing is going to the streets screaming "Sharia to the UK". That's just not right.

Stronk Serb

October 17th, 2015, 11:33 AM

One can only imagine what a world without whites will look like. We'll be seen as mythical, God-like creatures who did amazing things and were too beautiful for this planet.

Offensive imagery removed. ~Elysium

Tell me, how do you Slavs squat so good?

image (http://i.imgur.com/3iEBJeQ.png)

Posts merged. Next time, please use the "Edit" or "Multi" button. ~Elysium

We, the Slavs have the squatting gene. It makes it possible to squat any time, any place and any clothes.

sqishy

October 17th, 2015, 01:45 PM

I agree that it's foolish to be proud of your country if your country has objectively done nothing to be proud of. But, for example, Portugal and the US have arguably great stories to tell (especially Portugal with its Reconquista and influence all over the world).

Regarding to racial homogeneity, I was talking more about the racial/ethnic heterogeneity that comes with importing people from third world countries/mass immigration. Of course it will destabilize a society that may have otherwise been both racial/ethnical and cultural homogeneous. People who have been long accustumed with being around people who share the same race, ethnicity and religion within their own country will arguably be not so thrilled about having dozens or hundreds of thousands of migrants swarm into their countries, speaking foreign languages and possibly disrespecting the dominant culture/religion that had already been established. And then you have race-mixing and all that thrown in the middle which kinda defeats the purpose of that "beautiful mosaic" and instead we become a brown shitstain throughout the world.

I mean, wouldn't you be sad to visit a country like Norway, Denmark or Sweden, characterized by their racial/ethnic/cultural homogeneity only to step out of the plane and seeing a bunch of -- I'll put it bluntly -- brown-skinned people speaking non-natural languages and practising non-traditional practises?
One thing is being a humble emigrant who respects his new country's culture and traditional values, another thing is going to the streets screaming "Sharia to the UK". That's just not right.

I agree with the first part of your first paragraph. I totally diasgree with the second part, if the whole picture is looked at, because colonialism.

What do you mean by importing people? I think that word should be reserved for total slavery.

Why do you think that all people won't be happy when they see new ethnicities?

Why do you think they are swarming into the country? If they are, in your view, it is the government's responsibility to control immigration.

Yes, there is a high chance foreign languages enter the country. Do you assume those people will make no effort to learn the one of the country they are entering? Yes, some will not, but many will.

The vast majority of immigrants do not have a plan to disrespect or insult the country they enter. That makes no logical sense on their part even if they all wanted to do it, because they know that it does not do well with their settling into the country. Yes, some immigrants do disrespectful things, but it is a huge minority.

Overall, why do you think these refugees/immigrants are invading and apparently destroying the country's culture and language?

Do you assume all these people are coming into the coutnry like flies? Do you think all of them have not dealt with war, death, disease, etc?

It is extremely important that immigrants and refugees keep to their responsibility of integrating into the country. I totally agree with you if they are disrespectful and rude toward the country. What I have an issue with, is assuming that ALL immigrants and refugees are disrespectful, rude and inconsiderate.
So I would agree with you mostly if all refugees and immigrants entering the country are not being considerate etc. But they're all not like that at all.

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 03:35 PM

I agree with the first part of your first paragraph. I totally diasgree with the second part, if the whole picture is looked at, because colonialism.

What do you mean by importing people? I think that word should be reserved for total slavery.

Why do you think that all people won't be happy when they see new ethnicities?

Why do you think they are swarming into the country? If they are, in your view, it is the government's responsibility to control immigration.

Yes, there is a high chance foreign languages enter the country. Do you assume those people will make no effort to learn the one of the country they are entering? Yes, some will not, but many will.

The vast majority of immigrants do not have a plan to disrespect or insult the country they enter. That makes no logical sense on their part even if they all wanted to do it, because they know that it does not do well with their settling into the country. Yes, some immigrants do disrespectful things, but it is a huge minority.

Overall, why do you think these refugees/immigrants are invading and apparently destroying the country's culture and language?

Do you assume all these people are coming into the coutnry like flies? Do you think all of them have not dealt with war, death, disease, etc?

It is extremely important that immigrants and refugees keep to their responsibility of integrating into the country. I totally agree with you if they are disrespectful and rude toward the country. What I have an issue with, is assuming that ALL immigrants and refugees are disrespectful, rude and inconsiderate.
So I would agree with you mostly if all refugees and immigrants entering the country are not being considerate etc. But they're all not like that at all.

By importing people I mean having them come. If birth rates weren't so damn low in Europe they wouldn't be so eager to have an open border policy regarding these waves.

I think people won't be happy to see new ethnicities because, as I said, some migrants may create disorder. I was just reading about an open-border activist who was raped by migrants in a party and was told by her peers to not say anything because it could hurt their efforts of abolishing borders all over the world. And another open-border activist who got stabbed in the back by a group of migrants... And still supported them. It's crazy.

They're swarming in the countries because of war, yes, but also because Europe is insanely generous in its immigration policies. They should all band together and use NATO or some other international effort to overtake those damn countries once and for all. I don't think Germany will be able to handle 1.5 million new people every year without some sort of civil war breaking out.

Some of them obviously aren't running away from Islam or they wouldn't be rallying up in the UK demanding the government to adopt Sharia Law.

I don't think the majority of them are bad people; but let's be honest, this isn't the solution either. Just letting everyone in is going to backfire tremendously, economically and socially. And it only takes a few to do nasty things.

EDIT: Links, in case you're doubting me:

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/open-borders-activist-stabbed-by-migrants-makes-insane-statement/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/06/no-borders-activist-gang-raped-migrants-pressured-silence-not-damage-cause/

>inb4 Breitbart

And some videos (listen to Claire de Lune while watching them):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QELzE-9TWeA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlHOWnYN7J4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfK6qJFWAEY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMsU9Ex-kJY

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 03:50 PM

We, the Slavs have the squatting gene. It makes it possible to squat any time, any place and any clothes.

That feel when your name will never be Ivan Ivanov Ivanovitch and you will never squat while dressed as a high-school PE coach and drink vodka with your equally slav friends. Why even live...

german_boy

October 17th, 2015, 03:58 PM

Living For Love

October 17th, 2015, 04:12 PM

How can you be proud of something you haven't achieved? "I'm proud to be American/German/Australian/Whatever" should rather be "I'm glad to be born here".
I can be proud of my son because he had a good mark on his test due to his hard work and determination, and that's not something I achieved by myself.

Judean Zealot

October 17th, 2015, 04:20 PM

I can be proud of my son because he had a good mark on his test due to his hard work and determination, and that's not something I achieved by myself.

But you have. First of all, you gave birth to him, and as such are quite directly responsible for the bad he does and partner in the good.

Furthermore, the raising of the child is also within the responsibilities of the parents, and as such they can be proud that they have ostensibly fulfilled their duties.

---

I agree with German Boy that ethnicity is an absurd thing to be proud about, but I fail to see how that somehow precludes Nationalism.

One can still be a chauvinist while merely feeling fortunate as opposed to proud that they belong to what he views as a superior society.

german_boy

October 17th, 2015, 04:21 PM

I can be proud of my son because he had a good mark on his test due to his hard work and determination, and that's not something I achieved by myself.

Of course you can be proud of it, it's not the same proudness as the nationalists' one.
For example, here in Germany many nationalists say "I'm proud of being German because of my culture" and feel as they were better persons because of the culture that was made by Goethe, Schiller, ... but not by them. That's what I mean by "wrong proudness".

sqishy

October 17th, 2015, 04:39 PM

By importing people I mean having them come. If birth rates weren't so damn low in Europe they wouldn't be so eager to have an open border policy regarding these waves.

I think people won't be happy to see new ethnicities because, as I said, some migrants may create disorder. I was just reading about an open-border activist who was raped by migrants in a party and was told by her peers to not say anything because it could hurt their efforts of abolishing borders all over the world. And another open-border activist who got stabbed in the back by a group of migrants... And still supported them. It's crazy.

They're swarming in the countries because of war, yes, but also because Europe is insanely generous in its immigration policies. They should all band together and use NATO or some other international effort to overtake those damn countries once and for all. I don't think Germany will be able to handle 1.5 million new people every year without some sort of civil war breaking out.

Some of them obviously aren't running away from Islam or they wouldn't be rallying up in the UK demanding the government to adopt Sharia Law.

I don't think the majority of them are bad people; but let's be honest, this isn't the solution either. Just letting everyone in is going to backfire tremendously, economically and socially. And it only takes a few to do nasty things.

EDIT: Links, in case you're doubting me:

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/open-borders-activist-stabbed-by-migrants-makes-insane-statement/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/06/no-borders-activist-gang-raped-migrants-pressured-silence-not-damage-cause/

>inb4 Breitbart

And some videos (listen to Claire de Lune while watching them):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QELzE-9TWeA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlHOWnYN7J4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfK6qJFWAEY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMsU9Ex-kJY

[I just watched all the videos. I'm not giving my view unless relevant to what I have to say, below.]

Before I go further, I am not saying that I think all refugees/immigrants are okay. I never thought that. I am sure many people are pretending to be refugees, where in fact they have a plan and are using the situation in an opportunistic manner. Just clearing that up, if it looked like anything otherwise.

It turns out we agree on some things here, though first off I don't see how calling immigrants imported people does anything other than imply they are traded commodities. I like to keep the view that people are not inherently traded commodities, though, in many cases like slavery and smuggling, they effectively are. Other than that I don't automatically call them that in the first place. Other people forced the effective label on them, not me. I have no reason to do it. (I'm not including most of my opinon on this part, which would be more emotive and with more argument)

I agree with your second paragraph. Yes, there are many who are not what they seem, and yes, there is a number of people who have put their emotions in front of their calm reasoning big time, which only results in a mess at borders. Desperation is one word to be used. However, I view this as a minority. We don't have thousands of stabbings and rapes happening. This minority I would put with either acts of intention (as I said above), or severely non-thought-through acts of desperation (clearly rapes are not part of that).

Also, I agree that many countries are being too fast to say that they can take in a huge number of people, especially Germany. What is also an issue is that at least part of Germany's government assumes other EU contries can take in the same number of people, which is simply a case of not thinking things through. I agree with the view that Europe overall is just thinking of bringing as many people in as possible, not that that is a bad thing inherently at all, but that doing it and not thinking of the consequences at the same time, is sudden. Things could be planned through much more. There will be no plan that is seamless, there couldn't be with this situation, but things can certainly be managed more intensively and extensively.
In one of the extremely rare cases I agree with a comment by the UK PM a few weeks ago, I think the situation of the wars in the middle east (and other things) needs to be sorted out. However, I have many views and speculations with suspicion on that in itself. This crisis has many facets for sure.

What do you mean by NATO overtaking those countries? What countries? Simply asking; I don't know what you mean here.

Yes, a (in my view, very small) minority of immigrants (more likely than refugees I would guess, but I don't know) want to bring their religious and cultural views to their destination, and ask for it to be implemented in public. This is wrong indeed.

Overall, we are talking about minorities here. I also don't know really where you are standing on this - it seems a lot of the time that you have strong vehemental views, and when I take it to the details, you calm down. Again (not intending to be offensive) I find your point of view changing. If you don't think most of these people are bad, then what was going on about your view of an infestation of refugees, for example?

We may agree on things (some things, NOT overall), but I'm not converging towards your POV. It seems more like you are swinging towards mine now and then. Are you giving a point of view, or an emotive sensationalist picture?

Stronk Serb

October 17th, 2015, 04:52 PM

How can you be proud of something you haven't achieved? "I'm proud to be American/German/Australian/Whatever" should rather be "I'm glad to be born here".

The main problem is that most nationalists don't accept other opinions. It's scary to see the affects of the nationalistic parties and movements (today for example a politician was attacked in Cologne because of her politics).

I am quite proud to have ancestors who fought and died on every corner for the betger life of the next generation, I am quite proud to share the heritage of the great people of my ethnic background, I am proud to speak in their language...
I'm willing to accept different opinions if I find them cinvincing that they are better than mine.

Judean Zealot

October 17th, 2015, 05:04 PM

I am quite proud to have ancestors who fought and died on every corner for the betger life of the next generation, I am quite proud to share the heritage of the great people of my ethnic background, I am proud to speak in their language...
I'm willing to accept different opinions if I find them cinvincing that they are better than mine.

What's there to be proud of? You didn't do anything. I understand Nationalism, even some degree of chauvinism, being a deeply religious Zionist myself, but I never understood why people feel proud of what their predecessors have done. Perhaps if one does his own duty he can feel proud that he's continuing a noble legacy as embodied by his nation, but then he's proud of himself, not his nation. Perhaps you're confusing pride and gratitude?

Vlerchan

October 17th, 2015, 05:18 PM

What's there to be proud of? You didn't do anything.
I believe it's meant in a sense that nationalist are proud to be carrying on the traditions of their in-group. Though it seems that lots of nationalists see themselves as an extension of a nation and thus the achievements of their nation are in that manner their own. Of course I think in a sense all feelings of pride are self-constructed. Even take a parents pride in their son's or daughter's achievements. Those duties don't exist outside of imaginings of the familial unit - before it's mentioned: correlation is not causation: it's prevalence does not make it natural.

On this note - and I've been meaning to ask a line of these questions in the Judaism thread - do you see yourself as fortunate to be a Jew.

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 05:27 PM

[I just watched all the videos. I'm not giving my view unless relevant to what I have to say, below.]

Before I go further, I am not saying that I think all refugees/immigrants are okay. I never thought that. I am sure many people are pretending to be refugees, where in fact they have a plan and are using the situation in an opportunistic manner. Just clearing that up, if it looked like anything otherwise.

It turns out we agree on some things here, though first off I don't see how calling immigrants imported people does anything other than imply they are traded commodities. I like to keep the view that people are not inherently traded commodities, though, in many cases like slavery and smuggling, they effectively are. Other than that I don't automatically call them that in the first place. Other people forced the effective label on them, not me. I have no reason to do it. (I'm not including most of my opinon on this part, which would be more emotive and with more argument)

I agree with your second paragraph. Yes, there are many who are not what they seem, and yes, there is a number of people who have put their emotions in front of their calm reasoning big time, which only results in a mess at borders. Desperation is one word to be used. However, I view this as a minority. We don't have thousands of stabbings and rapes happening. This minority I would put with either acts of intention (as I said above), or severely non-thought-through acts of desperation (clearly rapes are not part of that).

Also, I agree that many countries are being too fast to say that they can take in a huge number of people, especially Germany. What is also an issue is that at least part of Germany's government assumes other EU contries can take in the same number of people, which is simply a case of not thinking things through. I agree with the view that Europe overall is just thinking of bringing as many people in as possible, not that that is a bad thing inherently at all, but that doing it and not thinking of the consequences at the same time, is sudden. Things could be planned through much more. There will be no plan that is seamless, there couldn't be with this situation, but things can certainly be managed more intensively and extensively.
In one of the extremely rare cases I agree with a comment by the UK PM a few weeks ago, I think the situation of the wars in the middle east (and other things) needs to be sorted out. However, I have many views and speculations with suspicion on that in itself. This crisis has many facets for sure.

What do you mean by NATO overtaking those countries? What countries? Simply asking; I don't know what you mean here.

Yes, a (in my view, very small) minority of immigrants (more likely than refugees I would guess, but I don't know) want to bring their religious and cultural views to their destination, and ask for it to be implemented in public. This is wrong indeed.

Overall, we are talking about minorities here. I also don't know really where you are standing on this - it seems a lot of the time that you have strong vehemental views, and when I take it to the details, you calm down. Again (not intending to be offensive) I find your point of view changing. If you don't think most of these people are bad, then what was going on about your view of an infestation of refugees, for example?

We may agree on things (some things, NOT overall), but I'm not converging towards your POV. It seems more like you are swinging towards mine now and then. Are you giving a point of view, or an emotive sensationalist picture?

I'm not flip-floping if that's what you're implying. I'm just saying that some people among the refugees can be opportunists or violent criminals (which, apparently, is already showing). If this "forced multiculturalism" was working you wouldn't see far-right parties like SD creeping up the polls. It just shows people are starting to realize that multiculturalism isn't all fun and games like it's advertized on TV and children's text books. And Merkel's decision of letting everyone in, Zuckerberg saying comments opposing the migration will be deleted from Facebook and people being evicted from their homes to make way for refugees just isn't right. They're adding insult to injury and people are starting to grow tired of all this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11891631/German-woman-threatened-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3256156/German-woman-second-evicted-home-make-room-migrants-country-begins-printing-constitution-Arabic-refugees-learn.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-confronting-mark-z/

Be honest with me, do you think any of these stories are right?

Judean Zealot

October 17th, 2015, 05:34 PM

I believe it's meant in a sense that nationalist are proud to be carrying on the traditions of their in-group. Yeah. I mentioned that possibility in my post, but the rank and file nationalists I've encountered seemed to have a much cruder formulation of national pride. That sort of nationalism appears to be a direct outgrowth of the Romantics. I mean, just take a look at Byron.
Though it seems that lots of nationalists see themselves as an extension of a nation and thus the achievements of their nation are in that manner their own. As I've mentioned, the Volkisch sentiments above don't have a shred of rationalism to them, and it all just seems to be a Wagner-esque small penis syndrome. One is unsatisfied with his own contributions so he falls back on to the sacrifice of others.
Of course I think in a sense all feelings of pride are self-constructed. Even take a parents pride in their son's or daughter's achievements. Those duties don't exist outside of imaginings of the familial unit - before it's mentioned: correlation is not causation: it's prevalence does not make it natural.
I believe a parent's pride is justified in the sense that they view their child's full college scholarship as a vindication of their parenting.

On this note - and I've been meaning to ask a line of these questions in the Judaism thread - do you see yourself as fortunate to be a Jew.

I am fortunate that I was born a Jew, and am proud that I remain a devoted one, both in public and private, despite all the temptations of the flesh.

Vlerchan

October 17th, 2015, 05:51 PM

Reading back I put zero thought into that last post.

[...] but the rank and file nationalists I've encountered seemed to have a much cruder formulation of national pride.
Yeah. Outside the Right-wing Intelligentsia it would seem that national pride is philosophically incoherent [notwithstanding the comments I make below and am perhaps charitably reading into them].

One is unsatisfied with his own contributions so he falls back on to the sacrifice of others.
But if I Stronk Serb sees himself as the latest outreach of the Serbian nation then it would seem that the Serbian nation is a definitional aspect of himself. If we decide to look at national pride through the lens of individualism then it would appear as characterised but nationalists don't tend to make these assumptions at all. From what I've gathered it would appear to a nationalist that his being is entwined with the contributions of his predecessors.

It was their achievements within the histories and arts of his people that determined him. Himself is contingent on his nation.

I believe a parent's pride is justified in the sense that they view their child's full college scholarship as a vindication of their parenting.
Yes. On further consideration - i.e., on consideration - it would seem you're definitely right here and I'm in the wrong.

Judean Zealot

October 17th, 2015, 06:07 PM

But if I Stronk Serb sees himself as the latest outreach of the Serbian nation then it would seem that the Serbian nation is a definitional aspect of himself. If we decide to look at national pride through the lens of individualism then it would appear as characterised but nationalists don't tend to make these assumptions at all. From what I've gathered it would appear to a nationalist that his being is entwined with the contributions of his predecessors.

It was their achievements within the histories and arts of his people that determined him. Himself is contingent on his nation.

This only saves one from the damnation of being a romantic (:P), but the overarching issue of pride versus gratitude still does exist. Regardless of whether one's Psyche is part of an organic whole that is the timeless Volk or not, unless one subscribes to a radical form of National Mysticism that asserts that the actions of one are truly borne and actuated on the will of all future descendants (and I have yet to come across such a philosophy), it would still be extremely difficult to justify pride.

Even if a man's self is predicated on his Nation, his Nation still remains an externally imposed (by God, the fates, or whoever) dimension of himself, as opposed to a willful expression of his Self, and as such is merely a matter of fortune.

Edit: I just remembered a Jewish tradition which would play in nicely with this theory of intergenerational unity of will. :P

The Midrash Exodus Rabbah (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Rabbah) teaches that all "souls destined to be born" were present at Sinai and participated in the acceptance of the Law.

sqishy

October 17th, 2015, 06:36 PM

I'm not flip-floping if that's what you're implying. I'm just saying that some people among the refugees can be opportunists or violent criminals (which, apparently, is already showing). If this "forced multiculturalism" was working you wouldn't see far-right parties like SD creeping up the polls. It just shows people are starting to realize that multiculturalism isn't all fun and games like it's advertized on TV and children's text books. And Merkel's decision of letting everyone in, Zuckerberg saying comments opposing the migration will be deleted from Facebook and people being evicted from their homes to make way for refugees just isn't right. They're adding insult to injury and people are starting to grow tired of all this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11891631/German-woman-threatened-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3256156/German-woman-second-evicted-home-make-room-migrants-country-begins-printing-constitution-Arabic-refugees-learn.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-confronting-mark-z/

Be honest with me, do you think any of these stories are right?

I agree with some of this. I certainly don't think the stories on the evictions are right. I don't like the view that this situation can be solved by just bringing everyone into the country. If you are referring to forced multiculturalism, then that is not right either, I agree, because it is forced. People shouldn't be dsiplaced to house displaced people, it just makes another issue out of trying to solve another.

This does not justify saying multiculturalism, foreign ethnicity immigration and the like, is a bad thing which will end up damaging or destroying a country. I don't see the connection.

What I see is a huge mess, and what I am also seeing are ideas that renewed nationalism will help against this. In my opinion, that makes a bigger mess, and nothing less than that. Jumping from one side of a socio-poilitcal spectrum to the other like Newtons' third law is a seriously simplistic view. It's not as simple as just opposing what is happening by effectively building a (metaphorical, mostly) wall and hope it dies down.

What did you mean by NATO having a need/etc to occupy other countries?

tonymontana99

October 17th, 2015, 07:01 PM

I agree with some of this. I certainly don't think the stories on the evictions are right. I don't like the view that this situation can be solved by just bringing everyone into the country. If you are referring to forced multiculturalism, then that is not right either, I agree, because it is forced. People shouldn't be dsiplaced to house displaced people, it just makes another issue out of trying to solve another.

This does not justify saying multiculturalism, foreign ethnicity immigration and the like, is a bad thing which will end up damaging or destroying a country. I don't see the connection.

What I see is a huge mess, and what I am also seeing are ideas that renewed nationalism will help against this. In my opinion, that makes a bigger mess, and nothing less than that. Jumping from one side of a socio-poilitcal spectrum to the other like Newtons' third law is a seriously simplistic view. It's not as simple as just opposing what is happening by effectively building a (metaphorical, mostly) wall and hope it dies down.

What did you mean by NATO having a need/etc to occupy other countries?

Ah, about NATO, yeah, I forgot about that part. Basically, I was saying that if the endgame is to overthrow Assad, they sure as Hell have to make sure they stabilize the region under a democratic government before pulling out, otherwise it becomes a mess. The good thing about dictators like Assad is that they are necessary evils. When you remove them, the people go crazy; and that's how extremism rises. We have to make sure they get a taste of sweet, sweet Western freedom to prevent the rise of another extremist group like ISIS. They failed with Saddam, they failed with Gadaffi, and if they royally fuck up with Assad it's game over, pretty much. And when I say NATO, I saw any international coalition that goes there and fixes things. Not just bomb the shit out of the country, topple the dictator and leave. I mean investing in education, new infrastructures and playing nice and fluffy whilst making sure there is a stable government run by sane people before leaving whatever country they invaded.

tl;dr -- if you're going to remove kebab, build infrastructure and provide freedom after

phuckphace

October 17th, 2015, 08:23 PM

However, I don't understand how wanting a racially homogenous society is not in some way discriminatory.

it is, but that's the point and, in the view of many, an ideal. do you think humankind would feature distinct races if most of us throughout history didn't prefer to keep to our own?

the pre-global world was more or less precisely such a patchwork of homogeneous societies, with the exception of a few cosmopolitan cities. homogeneous societies are built on mutual shared trust, history and experience. when the immigrants come, they bring their foreign customs, languages and grievances with them. this causes social cohesion to break down - as a general rule, people don't feel "at home" when their next door neighbor speaks a different language and doesn't resemble them in any way. how can you trust someone who doesn't speak your language and views you as an equally foreign curiosity?

in other words, it's psychological. it's how humans do things.

What is it about foreign races that is a problem? This I want to address now.

foreign races existing is not the problem. foreign races having their own cultures and languages is not a problem either. the problems arise only in the scenario I mentioned above, when globalism removed the barriers of geography and border fences.

If there is no problem with foreign races, then why is there a want to have a racially homogenous society in the first place?

see above.

Homogeneity of race only coherently holds if heterogenity of race is resisted.

true.

take Israel as one example. it's a Jewish state by Jews and for Jews doing Jewish things. when Muslims and Christians attempt to foist Islam and Christianity on them, there is a backlash which I've become more and more sympathetic towards for the same reason I'm an ethnonationalist at home - what would be the point of a country that purports to be the Jewish homeland but in practice is filled with non-Jews who use their political representation to shift its nature away from "Jewishness" and toward their own interests? are we playing "build your own modular country" Sid Meier style?

edit: just to note, I haven't actually read all the way through this thread. it seems to have taken off in a very short time.

Sir Suomi

October 17th, 2015, 09:13 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

That's later modern history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_and_conquests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming

Yes, Western Europeans are such butchers. How dare they kill millions of people in horrific manners.

I'm not arguing with you that Western Europeans/Americans have caused a lot of death throughout history. But to make it appear that they're the only ones who create conflicts that lead to the deaths of millions is complete and utter nonsense.

Uniquemind

October 18th, 2015, 01:51 AM

It's culturalism, not racism that causes the problem.

Person A finds details of Person B's culture that is incompatible with theirs.

When you are a refugee I believe it is a requirement you shed your former identity and culture expectations and behaviors at the geographical boarder of their collapsed state.

Cuisine and language can stay but other cultural habits have to go away, like biased views on gender roles that stem from their home culture, or religious pushy behavior that affects their neighbors.

Vlerchan

October 18th, 2015, 03:30 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_and_conquests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming

Yes, Western Europeans are such butchers. How dare they kill millions of people in horrific manners.

I'm not arguing with you that Western Europeans/Americans have caused a lot of death throughout history. But to make it appear that they're the only ones who create conflicts that lead to the deaths of millions is complete and utter nonsense.

I was responding to a claim that seemed to insist gross violence stood outside our culture.

You missed TM's image that got pulled down for being offensive that might have helped contextualise this. Though I thought it was clear without it.

---

If I also wanted to attack Westerners I also wouldn't have picked wars that had non-Western actors.

Exocet

October 18th, 2015, 04:20 AM

Why is it wrong to be a nationalist ? To be against seeing your country invaded and destroyed by aliens ?

sqishy

October 18th, 2015, 07:53 AM

it is, but that's the point and, in the view of many, an ideal. do you think humankind would feature distinct races if most of us throughout history didn't prefer to keep to our own?

the pre-global world was more or less precisely such a patchwork of homogeneous societies, with the exception of a few cosmopolitan cities. homogeneous societies are built on mutual shared trust, history and experience. when the immigrants come, they bring their foreign customs, languages and grievances with them. this causes social cohesion to break down - as a general rule, people don't feel "at home" when their next door neighbor speaks a different language and doesn't resemble them in any way. how can you trust someone who doesn't speak your language and views you as an equally foreign curiosity?

in other words, it's psychological. it's how humans do things.

I get that; yes it is psychological, absolutely. However, with a globalised world today, is a fully intentional want for a racially homogenous society subconscious human psychology anymore, or more of a complex ideaology? Is the psychological state of humans with respect to homogenous societies being stretched to keep an old system in a new world? If it is, it is very likely intentional; I'd see it as more than just our base psychology. Ideas are being placed over it. I agree with you fully if we were in the past, but with the world being the new and transient way it is, economically at least even, can ethnic homogeneity be justified with 'just our psychology'? Even from a evolutionary adaptive point of view, at the very least? We seem fine with accepting foreign foods/clothes/etc. If we did not trust the foreigners, why do we trust their foods/clothes?

Ah, about NATO, yeah, I forgot about that part. Basically, I was saying that if the endgame is to overthrow Assad, they sure as Hell have to make sure they stabilize the region under a democratic government before pulling out, otherwise it becomes a mess. The good thing about dictators like Assad is that they are necessary evils. When you remove them, the people go crazy; and that's how extremism rises. We have to make sure they get a taste of sweet, sweet Western freedom to prevent the rise of another extremist group like ISIS. They failed with Saddam, they failed with Gadaffi, and if they royally fuck up with Assad it's game over, pretty much. And when I say NATO, I saw any international coalition that goes there and fixes things. Not just bomb the shit out of the country, topple the dictator and leave. I mean investing in education, new infrastructures and playing nice and fluffy whilst making sure there is a stable government run by sane people before leaving whatever country they invaded.

tl;dr -- if you're going to remove kebab, build infrastructure and provide freedom after

Unfortunately yes, there are seriously bad dictators around but they do keep things stable. Invading a country and leaving with a power vacuum of sorts will only create a huge capacity for loads of new things springing up and all attempting to fill the same space. I don't adhere with the whole 'western freedom'/ISIS extremism (also, I think it more accurate to be called ISIL, if it is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, not to mention that Isis already was a label for an Egyptian goddess) and assuming we are better than the middle east, or something like it. However, help is needed there for sure, and in a non-foreceful way. If a new head of state is to be placed in a newly invaded country, it should be done by fully clear popular vote by the people of that country.

Vlerchan

October 18th, 2015, 12:06 PM

If a new head of state is to be placed in a newly invaded country, it should be done by fully clear popular vote by the people of that country.
The problem is this can't be applied in heterogeneous countries like Iraq. Here it's possible for leaders to hold a popular mandate and at the same time ignore the plight of significant minorities. In Iraq this turned to ignoring the actions his in-group took against minorities because it helped ensure his popular mandate.

Then there's places like Sri Lanka with functioning democracies but electoral groups built around being the most ethnosupremacist.

sqishy

October 18th, 2015, 12:34 PM

The problem is this can't be applied in heterogeneous countries like Iraq. Here it's possible for leaders to hold a popular mandate and at the same time ignore the plight of significant minorities. In Iraq this turned to ignoring the actions his in-group took against minorities because it helped ensure his popular mandate.

Then there's places like Sri Lanka with functioning democracies but electoral groups built around being the most ethnosupremacist.

Unfortunately yes. I was more giving an idealist plan, rather than a realistic one. I failed to mention that.

Sir Suomi

October 18th, 2015, 01:27 PM

I was responding to a claim that seemed to insist gross violence stood outside our culture.

Ah, I see. I'd read up to that post and misunderstood your angle there.

If I also wanted to attack Westerners I also wouldn't have picked wars that had non-Western actors.

Granted. However, I think it's quite redundant to try and completely single out one culture/racial ethnicity for conflicts. Humanity in general, for reasons unknown to me, seem to take pleasure in killing one another. Some simply do it more efficiently than others.

Porpoise101

October 18th, 2015, 02:48 PM

Only if it's by whites. You are a "proud" and "brave" black/hispanic person if you say you love your people and are proud of your heritage, but you're called a racist if you're white and say that. Oh, well. I guess the only thing to do at thsi point is to sit back, grab some popcorn and watch all this play out. After all, neither you or me will be directly affected by it. And if we are, off to Switzerland to live with the mountain jews.
Ok I think the issue is that 'white' isn't a culture. Black Americans have a culture that is separate from African cultures and the mainstream culture. Hispanics have a cultural group. Chinese, Arabs, Indians, they all have a culture. Europeans have a culture. But white isn't a culture. Instead it's just the mainstream 'American' culture if that makes sense. You could even be more specific and say Southern, Californian, Texan, but not white because it's not a culture. The mainstream culture isn't white though because it has been adopted by most Americans to some extent. And it's not bad to say "I'm proud to be an American" because there is even an overplayed song by that name. [emoji631]

Vlerchan

October 18th, 2015, 03:21 PM

I also decided to check if it was true that white people are reluctant to display pride in being a national of a nation. This is taken in 2007 before the so-called re-awakening of nationalism in Europe.

National pride is widespread throughout the European Union. With the exception of Germany, where the notion of ‘national pride’ still remains sensitive more than sixty years after the end of World War II more than three out of four respondents are proud to be citizens of their country.

Eurobarometer (2007), pp. 66. (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb66/eb66_en.pdf)

Jump to pp. 66 for a list of the individual scores. Most countries are in the high 80s to 90s. There's a significant number in the high 90s including Ireland [97].

It's interesting from pp. 6 in a 2014 publication (http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/spring_eurobarometer_july_2014.pdf) that antagonism towards the EU seems to have peaked and begun to decline. It's the same with pessimism about the EU's future on pp. 10. It's the case from pp. 26 that more people feel like a European citizen than at any time in the last 5 years. So perhaps TM is incorrect about a national re-awakening in the first place.

sqishy

October 18th, 2015, 03:30 PM

tonymontana99

October 18th, 2015, 05:08 PM

Why is it wrong to be a nationalist ? To be against seeing your country invaded and destroyed by aliens ?

You wouldn't understand it, Hans. You must always remember the magic number: 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 NEVER FORGET

Judean Zealot

October 18th, 2015, 05:34 PM

We really need a rep system in this place.

Capto

October 18th, 2015, 09:55 PM

Porpoise101

October 18th, 2015, 10:15 PM

God forbid. I know that in Japan, our nationalists are generally just groups of really scummy revisionists who intimidate leftists and moderates, generously collaborate with the yakuza, and spew unparalleled ethnic hate-speech against Koreans and Chinese.

Though it doesn't help that our entire culture is stuck-up, archaic, and ridiculously rigid as a whole.
I heard about that... Where the Japanese government was trying to revise some war crime in WW2. In some ways it reminds me of Erdogan in Turkey where he denies the Armenian and Greek genocides. I don't understand why they deny such things though it just makes them look cruel and they will never move on from that horrible event if they don't acknowledge it.

As for being archaic and rigid, could you please explain? I am interested to learn because I don't really know that much about Japanese culture in a modern sense. I know that it used to be quite war like but now it seems to be more pacifist no?

Jean Poutine

October 18th, 2015, 11:30 PM

We really need a rep system in this place.

There used to be one. It went to shit. Giant drama magnet. I'm glad it's gone, personally.

I also decided to check if it was true that white people are reluctant to display pride in being a national of a nation. This is taken in 2007 before the so-called re-awakening of nationalism in Europe.

National pride is widespread throughout the European Union. With the exception of Germany, where the notion of ‘national pride’ still remains sensitive more than sixty years after the end of World War II more than three out of four respondents are proud to be citizens of their country.

Eurobarometer (2007), pp. 66. (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb66/eb66_en.pdf)

Jump to pp. 66 for a list of the individual scores. Most countries are in the high 80s to 90s. There's a significant number in the high 90s including Ireland [97].

It's interesting from pp. 6 in a 2014 publication (http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/spring_eurobarometer_july_2014.pdf) that antagonism towards the EU seems to have peaked and begun to decline. It's the same with pessimism about the EU's future on pp. 10. It's the case from pp. 26 that more people feel like a European citizen than at any time in the last 5 years. So perhaps TM is incorrect about a national re-awakening in the first place.

I think the keyword is "display", and also that civic and ethnic nationalism are considered completely different as a conscious political policy. It's kosher to wave flags about and support the boys overseas and tell guys doing a survey that you're proud of your country. I don't think anyone can dispute that. Displaying pride in one's race (if you're white) is much, much more sensitive, even if accomplished by relatively roundabout ways, and IMO that's where the true debate lies. If someone claims that white people are reluctant to show pride in their nation, they're wrong, end of. But it's correct to say that ethnic nationalism is heavily frowned upon when it comes from whites, and no one else. Well, Jews kinda get a pass, but that's because people are unsure whether the Jewish identity is religious or ethnic in nature.

In Canada there was a recent noncontroversy where some dudes from a group called "Students for Western Civilization" posted flyers around Ontarian universities calling for a white students' union. The unis immediately took them down and commented how simply posting these flyers around made non-white students "feel unsafe" and how they were "offended". Ignoring that feeling unsafe and offended by such a benign, nondescript flyer is called "hysteria", at York there is an African Students' Union, a Chinese Students' Union, unions for everybody. Call one for whites and you're a racist white supremacist turbo shitlord. The stigma against ethnic pride by whites is about 100x that of simple civic nationalism in Germany. Germans wave flags around at football games and some manage to feel ashamed, but it's generally admitted as correct. Ethnic pride is never correct.

You might say that "white culture" doesn't exist and that whites have many different cultures. I agree, that's why I think "white pride" is nonsense (so is Black/African pride or Asian pride). But any kind of ethnic pride coming from a white person is intolerable white supremacy (itself a term that doesn't make much sense). People will say "call it "European Students' Union" or split it up into country unions and it'll be cool". Thing is, I know for a fact that this won't fly. I should know, I'm from Quebec. We take any action to protect our French Catholic culture and we're tarred as racists, xenophobes and white supremacists in the media despite trying our very best to pass our nationalism as civic (nobody believes us). Even when localized and even when it has nothing to do with skin colour, ethnic pride from a white person is white supremacy, end of.

---

Here's the thing : in our multicultural communities, immigrants and descendants thereof are told to avoid falling into the melting pot, while the original inhabitants are told to throw themselves in it. We should accept, not merely tolerate, but accept wholeheartedly practices that are foreign and sometimes even repulsive to us, while minorities are not held to the same standard unless said practices are downright monstrous. I don't think that's right, or fair. We have the same right to preserve and be proud of our mores and accomplishments as anyone else.

Example : I expect newcomers to Quebec to learn French and to speak it to the best of their abilities. If I ever move to Egypt you can be goddamn sure I'm going to learn Egyptian Arabic even if it takes me a lifetime. It's the most basic freaking common courtesy.

I'm not going to convert to Islam but I'm not going to get all butthurt because people wish me ramadan mubarak and I sure as Hell am not going to eat in broad daylight during Ramadan with everyone watching me. I am not home. If I want to live exactly as I do home, speak only French with everybody and eat whenever and wherever the Hell I want to then I'm going to stay exactly where I am. But somehow it's completely fine that someone who's been here for 20 years speaks only English, or worse, neither French nor English. I shouldn't have to resort to communication by hand signs, grunts and head nods with people in my own country or province, yet it has happened to me numerous times. It's also completely fine to take off the crosses and Christmas trees from public places and it's also somehow understandable that people go off on my ass for wishing them happy Christmas, as trite and overused as that example is.

People are tired of the double standards and the lack of politeness of what they consider as guests in their lands and I 100% approve. I'm tired of that too.

Exocet

October 19th, 2015, 06:56 AM

You wouldn't understand it, Hans. You must always remember the magic number: 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 NEVER FORGET

The F*ck you are talking about ?

tonymontana99

October 19th, 2015, 08:07 AM

The F*ck you are talking about ?

Holla cost.

Exocet

October 19th, 2015, 09:05 AM

Holla cost.

Lel.

Porpoise101

October 19th, 2015, 03:03 PM

There used to be one. It went to shit. Giant drama magnet. I'm glad it's gone, personally.

I think the keyword is "display", and also that civic and ethnic nationalism are considered completely different as a conscious political policy. It's kosher to wave flags about and support the boys overseas and tell guys doing a survey that you're proud of your country. I don't think anyone can dispute that. Displaying pride in one's race (if you're white) is much, much more sensitive, even if accomplished by relatively roundabout ways, and IMO that's where the true debate lies. If someone claims that white people are reluctant to show pride in their nation, they're wrong, end of. But it's correct to say that ethnic nationalism is heavily frowned upon when it comes from whites, and no one else. Well, Jews kinda get a pass, but that's because people are unsure whether the Jewish identity is religious or ethnic in nature.

In Canada there was a recent noncontroversy where some dudes from a group called "Students for Western Civilization" posted flyers around Ontarian universities calling for a white students' union. The unis immediately took them down and commented how simply posting these flyers around made non-white students "feel unsafe" and how they were "offended". Ignoring that feeling unsafe and offended by such a benign, nondescript flyer is called "hysteria", at York there is an African Students' Union, a Chinese Students' Union, unions for everybody. Call one for whites and you're a racist white supremacist turbo shitlord. The stigma against ethnic pride by whites is about 100x that of simple civic nationalism in Germany. Germans wave flags around at football games and some manage to feel ashamed, but it's generally admitted as correct. Ethnic pride is never correct.

You might say that "white culture" doesn't exist and that whites have many different cultures. I agree, that's why I think "white pride" is nonsense (so is Black/African pride or Asian pride). But any kind of ethnic pride coming from a white person is intolerable white supremacy (itself a term that doesn't make much sense). People will say "call it "European Students' Union" or split it up into country unions and it'll be cool". Thing is, I know for a fact that this won't fly. I should know, I'm from Quebec. We take any action to protect our French Catholic culture and we're tarred as racists, xenophobes and white supremacists in the media despite trying our very best to pass our nationalism as civic (nobody believes us). Even when localized and even when it has nothing to do with skin colour, ethnic pride from a white person is white supremacy, end of.

---

Here's the thing : in our multicultural communities, immigrants and descendants thereof are told to avoid falling into the melting pot, while the original inhabitants are told to throw themselves in it. We should accept, not merely tolerate, but accept wholeheartedly practices that are foreign and sometimes even repulsive to us, while minorities are not held to the same standard unless said practices are downright monstrous. I don't think that's right, or fair. We have the same right to preserve and be proud of our mores and accomplishments as anyone else.

Example : I expect newcomers to Quebec to learn French and to speak it to the best of their abilities. If I ever move to Egypt you can be goddamn sure I'm going to learn Egyptian Arabic even if it takes me a lifetime. It's the most basic freaking common courtesy.

I'm not going to convert to Islam but I'm not going to get all butthurt because people wish me ramadan mubarak and I sure as Hell am not going to eat in broad daylight during Ramadan with everyone watching me. I am not home. If I want to live exactly as I do home, speak only French with everybody and eat whenever and wherever the Hell I want to then I'm going to stay exactly where I am. But somehow it's completely fine that someone who's been here for 20 years speaks only English, or worse, neither French nor English. I shouldn't have to resort to communication by hand signs, grunts and head nods with people in my own country or province, yet it has happened to me numerous times. It's also completely fine to take off the crosses and Christmas trees from public places and it's also somehow understandable that people go off on my ass for wishing them happy Christmas, as trite and overused as that example is.

People are tired of the double standards and the lack of politeness of what they consider as guests in their lands and I 100% approve. I'm tired of that too.
Interesting. Maybe they think French speakers are a fellow minority though as Canada seems to be pretty dominated by an Anglo culture. But other than that I agree that they should know about where they are moving to as immigrants. I know my father did when he came to the US.

dxcxdzv

October 19th, 2015, 05:08 PM

Laws that exist as a result of majoritarian consent yes.
The laws ruling the fundamental institutions are in majority from the Constitution, which can hardly be changed actually.

Let's start with a broad one. Democratic governance. In order for coherent governance to exist in this form it requires that we share some base assumptions about it's operations. I'm considering ideals like the separation of church and state or base civil and political rights. These ideas are required to be embedded in our political cultures to even conceive a democratic government

Then we get to having a coherent government and this required the founding of deep political culture. The belief must be maintained that people have quasi-similar goals and that distinctions in this regard can be flattened out through political negotiation. If this belief is dislodged then cold-politics become irrelevant and an attraction forms towards hot-politics - like protests and in the worst of cases revolutions - emerges.
Do you think the "massive" immigration on going could be able to destabilize enough the political views of a country to deeply change the "bases" and others?
I assume most of the great political ideals don't depend of culture (in the current contexte of course). Culture interferes with more accurate things of political life.
I guess you are saying that "massive" immigration wake up some nationalist and "hate" ideals. I remember in France, one month ago some quotes from the Nazi Party (the old great one) circulating on Tweeter and Facebook got a lot of "likes" by simply replacing jews&co with immigrates&co.
I think that the changes in "institutions" are more long term transformations that "simple" (not a 90% of the population) immigration can't impact on.
So, I don't consider that even in a democratic system a such immigration could affect deeply enough the so called system to make it, well, (too) different.
Of course I agree that in certain proportions this could be problematic.

Shit I shouldn't write.

Vlerchan

October 20th, 2015, 03:59 PM

Regardless of whether one's Psyche is part of an organic whole that is the timeless Volk or not, unless one subscribes to a radical form of National Mysticism that asserts that the actions of one are truly borne and actuated on the will of all future descendants (and I have yet to come across such a philosophy), it would still be extremely difficult to justify pride.
That sounds like social determinism. The erection [past tense] and maintenance [past and present tense] of a distinct cultural tradition determines in some part the will of those integrated. I as such then can't be understood without reference to the whole as I am but a mere extension of it. That also doesn't mean that part of it can't exist separate of it but rather the collective will precedes and dominates that of the individual.

---

Displaying pride in one's race (if you're white) is much, much more sensitive, even if accomplished by relatively roundabout ways, and IMO that's where the true debate lies.
I wouldn't consider pride in one's race to be ethnic nationalism because our race isn't an ethnic group. Claiming white pride is about as redundant as claiming to be a citizen of the world. It's sole declaration as such tends to invoke genetic distinction which is where the problem in it's use lies.

I feel it's different with Blacks and Asian's [residing in the West] and Jews because their perception [please don't] of discrimination binds them together as a commons. This is more or less the argument Herzl used to claim that the Jews were a nation and as such might come to possess a nation-state if I remember correct. These aren't a natural nation - aside: I don't believe nation's are natural per se - but one constructed.

---

I also get the feeling we have different understandings of the term ethnic nationalism. I'm using it to describe nationalism derived from a perceived common ancestral heritage.

[...] [white supremacism is] a term that doesn't make much sense [...]
Perhaps you've just been blessed with encountering less race-realists on the internet.

I should know, I'm from Quebec. We take any action to protect our French Catholic culture and we're tarred as racists, xenophobes and white supremacists in the media despite trying our very best to pass our nationalism as civic (nobody believes us). Even when localized and even when it has nothing to do with skin colour, ethnic pride from a white person is white supremacy, end of.
Please note that I'm going to auto-cede points on Quebec. I don't know much of it's politics and I don't have the time to research it.

In the meantime feel free to join your local 1916 society (http://1916societies.com/). It's very white.

---

It's also arguable that Ireland might be exception because of it's historical place as a perceived oppressed nation. People from other white countries can feel free to documented legitimate examples of white's demonstrating ethnic pride beyond flag waving.

---

The laws ruling the fundamental institutions are in majority from the Constitution, which can hardly be changed actually.
In most European states the constitution is weak and can be changed in the parliament.

Do you think the "massive" immigration on going could be able to destabilize enough the political views of a country to deeply change the "bases" and others?
It's possible for large enough densities of another to make democratic governance unrepresentative and coherent. It's not about altering views though. It's about the arrival of others with distinct political cultures. Our institutions are either derived from our political cultures or produced through occupation.

I'm also playing devil's advocate here Btw. I don't believe there's a realistic chance of major distortion.

Judean Zealot

October 20th, 2015, 04:49 PM

That sounds like social determinism. The erection [past tense] and maintenance [past and present tense] of a distinct cultural tradition determines in some part the will of those integrated. I as such then can't be understood without reference to the whole as I am but a mere extension of it. That also doesn't mean that part of it can't exist separate of it but rather the collective will precedes and dominates that of the individual.

I still do not see how this justifies pride. It is a brute fact, 'I am Jewish'. One would have to assert not only an extension of influence from the aggregate past to the present, but also some unquantifiable influence of the present on the past. Just as I can't be proud that I was born at all, I cannot either be proud of having been born in a superior society.

I'm not sure why we're talking past each other here, usually we understand the other's points.

Vlerchan

October 20th, 2015, 05:16 PM

[...] but also some unquantifiable influence of the present on the past [...]
I'm just not sure why this is required.

Just as I can't be proud that I was born at all, I cannot either be proud of having been born in a superior society.
I'll first make the point that it doesn't require being morn somewhere superior. To the pluralist - and that's the fact of modern nationalism: de Benoist etc. - there is no superior or inferior. It as such doesn't make much sense to claim one is fortunate or unfortunate for existing in one place rather than another because fortunate and unfortunate presuppose a better and worse.

It's also not about being born there. It's about being a part and recognising that your part in the whole is fundamental to your actual existence. To the collectivist the individual is the social construction. His will being preceded and dominated by the collective means that his acts are an extension of the collectives. The collective - to which the individual is bound to - is as such the source of all action and the source of all achievement.

I'm not sure why we're talking past each other here, usually we understand the other's points.
I might not be elucidating it too clearly. Since I'm not defending my own viewpoint that's quite possible.

It could also be based on differing definitions of pride. I realise - after some thought - I'm using it to refer to a sense of deep appreciation for the achievements of oneself where oneself is a semiotic construction. I would imagine you're using it in a more traditional sense where there exists an actual being that can be referred to.

Judean Zealot

October 20th, 2015, 05:26 PM

It could also be based on differing definitions of pride. I realise - after some thought - I'm using it to refer to a sense of deep appreciation for the achievements of oneself where oneself is a semiotic construction. I would imagine you're using it in a more traditional sense where there exists an actual being that can be referred to.

Got it. Yeah, I agree that an appreciation on that level can be justified. I was referring to pride as a feeling of deep satisfaction with one's self on account of his self's accomplishments. If we view the individual man as a subject then this is ludicrous.

Although I'll point out again, "I'm proud to be 'Murrican" is rarely justified by this idea, considering as one would need to be quite the fascist to 'desubjectify' the individual.

Vlerchan

October 21st, 2015, 05:45 AM

Although I'll point out again, "I'm proud to be 'Murrican" is rarely justified by this idea, considering as one would need to be quite the fascist to 'desubjectify' the individual.
Yeah. I'm in agreement here. Like you might be able to make an argument with regards to political culture [constitutional patriotism] but even I'm not that insipid.

Topkek

October 28th, 2015, 03:53 AM

Yes, I am European and can confirm that I am sick of immigrants and Muslims.

Hyper

October 29th, 2015, 07:14 PM

People are tired of the double standards and the lack of politeness of what they consider as guests in their lands and I 100% approve. I'm tired of that too.

Great post all around :)

I agree pretty much with all of it.

As a sidenote.

If there is ''black culture'' there is every other kind of race related culture as well - end of.

Yes it could be argued that black culture is a more tangible thing than white culture, because of history and what not, but that is probably only true in some parts of the world i.e America.

Also note that all culture is really just a question of ''identity''.

Porpoise101

October 30th, 2015, 11:54 AM

Great post all around :)

I agree pretty much with all of it.

As a sidenote.

If there is ''black culture'' there is every other kind of race related culture as well - end of.

Yes it could be argued that black culture is a more tangible thing than white culture, because of history and what not, but that is probably only true in some parts of the world i.e America.

Also not that all culture is really just a question of ''identity''.

Yes you are right about identity but I think you misunderstand. I was trying to say that black culture is really just black American culture (people who are decedents of slaves) is really not the same as the cultures of black people in the world (Hausa, Amharic, etc). People just call it black culture because it's easier to say than "African American" culture. I also said that there isn't really a white or Asian culture as whites and Asians have their own respective European cultures or they identify with the mainstream American culture (or other regional ones). You could say that the mainstream culture is white because it was derived from European influence, but it is not very accurate as it has been influenced a lot by other groups. Also, it isn't solely for white people as many second generation Asians and Hispanics and some black people adopt it. Personally I think that black culture is a bad term but I don't really know what else to call it.

Hyper

October 30th, 2015, 01:42 PM

Yes you are right about identity but I think you misunderstand. I was trying to say that black culture is really just black American culture (people who are decedents of slaves) is really not the same as the cultures of black people in the world (Hausa, Amharic, etc). People just call it black culture because it's easier to say than "African American" culture. I also said that there isn't really a white or Asian culture as whites and Asians have their own respective European cultures or they identify with the mainstream American culture (or other regional ones). You could say that the mainstream culture is white because it was derived from European influence, but it is not very accurate as it has been influenced a lot by other groups. Also, it isn't solely for white people as many second generation Asians and Hispanics and some black people adopt it. Personally I think that black culture is a bad term but I don't really know what else to call it.

Call it counter culture to being white :P ? (sort of a troll)

To me it seems the entire world suffers from self professed victimhood and adversialism.

A lot of these racial or cultural conflicts are a result of this adversialism brought on in part by counter culture - it works both ways, but to me it seems that most minorities are working very hard either knowingly or by chance to align themselves opposite of whatever culture is dominant in their area.

And when you align ''opposite'' of something, even without antagonistic intentions, it is very easy to be perceived as an antagonistic behaviour and from there any kind of antagonistic actions keep on escalating and escalating and escalating... Eventually becoming a part of whatever cultural identities were involved in the first place.

And the modern world is filled with this behaviour... SJWs... Feminists, people crying foul and claiming victimhood whenever they can, blowing things out of proportion until they create an artifical problem that actually becomes a real problem out of peoples spite, often.

Instead of live and let live and letting changes come gradually everyone is trying to push some agenda on you, based on whatever is the ''in thing''. ''White males have to apologise'' - if someone told me to apologise for being a white man I'd laugh in their face or maybe punch them in the face if I was having a very bad day or if that request was accompanied by nagging on about how good the white patriarchy has had it historically (historically my white ancestors never had it good, maybe this is also the reason the Irish are allowed to ''get away'' with big national pride on their part).

And right now it's the migrant issue in Europe. It's being propagated so much it's making me sick. I have nothing against people based on their race but I do have legitimate economic and cultural concerns - even ethic concerns regarding how come our government will apply European social harta to migrants but not our own citizens? However all of these concerns get drowned by outright media propaganda and idiot nationalists - people I might otherwise agree with if they didn't make obviously racist or just plain stupid statements that have really nothing to do with real, argumentative and not in any way racist views. Every time these nationalists say or do something that is actually racist it provides ammunition to the crowd of people who are always campaigning for justice for the whatever-is-the-popular-injustice-in-the-world-right-now crowd.

Also all of this also demonstrates how, as usual, any kind of real intellectual, argumentative discource, free of cheap psychological tricks and mass manipulation, just seems to be impossible in the wider public and/or media.

Porpoise101

October 30th, 2015, 03:23 PM

Call it counter culture to being white [emoji14] ? (sort of a troll)

I guess to some degree you could call it a counter culture in a lot of ways. In the beginning their religion and music (spirituals and blues) reflect this struggle against the slave owners. During the 1920s there was some dissenting but they used that as a creative fuel for the Harlem Renaissance. And in the 90s, rap music came as a way of protest. Sure, American black culture is very much resistant to the mainstream one in an aggressive way but also in a nonaggressive way too. Until recently, the extended family was extremely important as it was a way of support and strength. But today in some places I feel family connections are deteriorating for just about everyone. If there is one thing I dislike in contemporary society it is that families are not close knit. Probably this culture will merge with the mainstream one eventually, but it is hard to know when. I wouldn't call it trolling in its origins though, as it was definitely defensive then at least.

Vlerchan

October 30th, 2015, 04:11 PM

[...] maybe this is also the reason the Irish are allowed to ''get away'' with big national pride on their part [...]
There's an argument it's because Irish are seen as a nation perceived to have been victim to historical subjugation. I feel 'historical' is important here. It would seem that the nationalisms of groups like the Scots, Catalans, and Venetians are seen in legitimate within the popular concious but as far as I'm aware none of these groups where victims of oppression in the past [at least to the scale that other nations endured].

It would seem more to me that the popular concious has rather - at a subconscious level - adopted the Marxian progressive-regressive nationalism distinction. Irish nationalism is valid because it's a peripheral identification and is seen as being under-threat from the centre. This might help explain the construction of victimhood - though in a lot of cases I feel this is valid.

I also feel black nationalism existing and being legitimate - whilst the opposite is true for white nationalism - still makes perfect sense if we see nationalism as constructed on grounds of what I've outlined.