Why are we for nationalism again?
Because fuck off, we're full.
Not bad isolationism considering there was only about 10 000 of them total.
makes me think of that story in the bible with the tower of babel. people were cast out into the lands and spoke different languages so they couldn't understand each other or some shit like that.
dear god the border gore
Fuckin 'Radj reprazent bra
depending on who's bum you pull the figure out of
Looks like your working with the wrong flag there user, here let me help
It seems to be a decent compromise. We could probably do with a bit more decentralization though.
yeah and that's what i mean. there's a clear trend.
Because not all of us are not native to the country we were born in Mohammed
>mfw there's a tribe called "Peerapper"
what's the difference?
Because the alternative is a satanist sci fi world wide dystopia
Nations are conglomerations of groups with a shared history, culture and language. They're not organic entities and require force and work to be constructed, like what happened here in Sweden.
The line was drawn by what territories the crown owned, and a state nationalization process forced integration by making local deviating traditions and languages illegal while promoting the common factors, and a state set "national culture" which may or may not be nationally rooted.
So a tribe is a small organically formed unit, and a nation is forced integration of many neighboring tribes.
That is a shit example
Civilization only begins when the populace self-eugenicizes itself enough
Therefore, Australians (abos) and Africans don't have a civilization on their own, and in the case of Australians probably wont due to them being de facto destroyed
>hundreds of different cultures
>invented a stick
Damn, so Australia was ALWAYS multicultural?
Now I don't feel bad.
I still don't really see a difference. The tribe has a leader who operates on it just like the state government operates in your example. And the point of the thread is that the globalist elite today are no different from the kings in the past or the white man who colonized the tribes in unsettled lands like those of the aborigines. It's just a spectrum of the same thing. What nationalists are fighting for isn't really so much the concept of nations in general as it is the supremacy of their own tribe. Even if progress is going towards oneness, you can't really strive for it, because it would be the same as just lying down to die. The stealth airplane wouldn't have come about were it not for the radar. But you can't skip the radar and go straight to the stealth airplane can you?
not my point
i dont really have a point
What your picture actually shows is balkanization within a nation, which is why it tends to be easier if you have 1 majority ethnicity per nation.
That map essentially looks like a multicultural society looks if you bring people from all over the world into australia. Everyone voting for their tribal/special interests and you have potentially lots of ethnic strife and a hard time agreeing with what kind of culture and values and behaviour the nation should have.
That picture just shows that unlike others the abbo's didn't consolidate their territory into one nation and pool their ressources, eventhough they were of the same ethnicity. And very few people considering the territory.
>eventhough they were of the same ethnicity
Most of them had been inbreeding for so long, across so many generations that classifying them as different ethnicities wouldn't have even been that far off. The only time they got fresh genes into that pool was when they kidnapped another tribes children.
>What nationalists are fighting for isn't really so much the concept of nations in general as it is the supremacy of their own tribe.
Bullshit, now i know you are a migrant to sweden, some nations have a very long history and thus have developed ways of doing things that work for them, people from other areas do things very differently. There's a massive difference between mass migration and the picture you show one example is that mass migration can destabilize otherwise stable nations. Another is ethnic displacement.
There's no net positive for a stable nation letting in hordes of people from somewhere else who bring a very different attitude and behaviour with them. It denegrates their heritage, culture values and also ethnically displaces them in their own nation.
Nationalism has nothing to do with wanting your ethnicity to be supreme all over the world, that's total nonsense, it's just an understanding that your ethnicity needs to remain majority in your nation, or it's going to change into something entirely different which could in high likelyhood undermine everything those peoples ancestors created/worked for, spent a long time promoting culturally, like freedom of speech and many other such things, that are simply not present in many nations all over the world.
Stable nations should have no interest in such a thing at all.
There is also a direct sense of ownership of that land and what their ancestors built on it, that rightfully only belongs to that ethnicity and essentially others are guests that didn't help build it, immigrants do not essentially have the same right to those things just by walking across the border.
People like aboriginals or indians in the US weren't colonized, because they had no nation. Both in Australia and in the US there were only few of them, and otherwise just empty space as far as you could see..
Let me put it to you like this, if middle easterners had create some glorious societies where everything was perfect and they had a really good way of doing things that seemed to create very good results..
And then some others said "hey can i come, i don't want to do it like you do, but i want to stay there cause you've got nice things" and then proceeded to act in a way that was the opposite of the way that worked there.. Do you think the middle easterners would say "sure come on in?" It's a rethorical question, they would say "No please go away/stay in your own nations we are not interested in you living here unless you do it our way."
Why? Because they HAVE BUILT SOMETHING THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE!
And they would also limit the amount of people that could come so that they remained a majority.
I understand that some who have not really built anything they think is worth defending or protecting, or anything they are afraid of losing, want to go somewhere else.. But they also have to understand that some have built something that they are NOT interested in losing!
And any bullshit about xenophobia and all this crap is just that.. it's total crap, because these people behave in a way that makes it a very reasonable risk that they will lose a lot of that peaceful situation and other things in their countries if they let too many of them in. So it's legitimate to be concerned about it, you can't just label shit as an irrational fear because you politically have an interest in someone opening the doors for you. But that's what the left does, in particular leftist migrants who when they get their foot in the door tries to drag it wide open and fight the native population politically about it, they have a total conflict of interest. And that's another thing that also leads to social balkanization.
Essentially the same people that call white people who don't want insane amounts of migrants to enter their nations who have btw. a very different behaviour and many don't even want to behave like the way they come to sadly. (or it would be less of an issue but still an issue if there came too many). Would be the same people that if white people became minorities in their own countries due to this would switch from calling them racists (for not letting more in) and instead say "hah tough luck white boy, it's our country now because we are more than you" Because they know very well how that shit works!
The majority makes the rules of the nation/area! That's the entire point of nations and borders. To have your own place where your own people can be and do things the way they prefer. And when those nations have been nations for maybe a thousand years or something like that and people have built all kinds of stuff there, it's completely unfair to suggest that "hey it's not your stuff, and btw. let us in so we can make the rules here instead of you."
I have to admit several years ago i thought i would never have to have that kind of discussion or these things even being put into question why these things should be that way. Given that wars till nations became more stabilized were fought by "go in invade and say ok we now run this shit" And MASS migration functions essentially in the same way especially if you have big differences in birth rates between ethnicities which tends to be the case, but without a direct war declaration, but the result is essentially the same.
It's like if you have a house, I assume you want to be lord of your own house, you bought and paid for it, perhaps you even built it yourself and spent quite a while to build it (like peoples ancestors spent quite a while building a nation to a certain point with infrastructure etc.) Maybe you grow some of your food in your garden etc.
ok so then some knock on your door and say hmm can we stay? and there's maybe you and your wife and 2 kids, and they are maybe 8 people that want to stay, and you say ok.. Then they come in, and say "ok we make the rules now it is our house because we are more than you now, so whatever you think you decide, if we don't like it we are going to do it differently, and if you don't agree we'll kick you out of your own house cause it's ours now since you let us stay" That would be pretty damn annoying wouldn't it?
Well that's exactly similar of a situation with mass migration and this "multiculturalism" that is supposedly so great, especially from people who don't even care about following your rules.
I didn't say mass migration and multiculturalism is great. I said in the past it was multiple tribes who were forced by the king to use the same language and follow the same laws, and they fought against that. Today it is multiple countries fighting against globalism in the same way.
>using more than 4 colors for this map
this is why STEM cannot be STEAM
Ok well the OP did ask the question "Why are we for nationalism again?" And i've tried to answer that in a bit longwinded fashion.
Let's take colonialism for instance, even under that they didn't throw the population out of their countries, actually the countries that were colonized (not by all white nations i might add aswell) are still a massive ethnic majority of their own people. And i don't deny there was bad things about colonialism either, but there are actually many cases where those nations objectively were better off and even in some cases where the people would have liked colonial conditions back because they were better off, colonialists didn't kick them out on the contrary they built stuff there and taught them things, they were primarily there for ressources and foods and spices and that sort of thing and establishing also trade etc.
But the fact is majority white nations aren't that many nor were they historically, so if someone argues that yeah just let mass migration continue to those nations, so now that's great for the migrants because if they make the white people minorities in their own nations. Then they now essentially have a nation they have taken over that they can decide whatever they want to do in and change it completely, but the white people who built those nations, where the hell are they supposed to go? The migrants can at any point if things gets fucked up migrate back to their original nations with their massive majority and their original culture and values etc.
Where are the white people supposed to go when they can't even have their OWN nations that they have built and nurtured for themselves?
Whilst apparently the ethnicities the migrants belong to can have their own mass majority nations where they've pretty much always been, aswell as the nations that used to belong to white people for centuries even over a millennia or more with same people living there.