Nationalism

Red-pill me on Nationalism.

Can it work and be socially accepted by a country that's diverse?

Can it accommodate legal immigrants that are assimilated and contributing to their new country?

Other urls found in this thread:

huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is-rising-not_b_10281138.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

to point on nationalism is to make countries not diverse

>diverse

Not for long hopefully

Yes, because nationalism is about nationality, not race. As for the immigrants, ideally in a nationalist country there would be no illegal immigrants, but legal immigrants should be welcome.

So would that mean stopping all immigration?
Even if they're extremely qualified & skilled white Europeans?

I know Nationalism isn't always so black or white (excuse the pun) - that's why I'm asking.

you didn't pick your country where you were born and borders are imaginary so it's really foolish to be proud of it

Do you realize how fucking dumb you sound? Diverse? What are you? You are probably a mix of everything from negro, English, German, etc. Most Americans are.

>Inb4 leftists baiting

huffingtonpost.com/george-friedman/nationalism-is-rising-not_b_10281138.html

The only good thing i ever read on huffpo.

Hourly reminder that Italians are NOT white people in 2016 America. They are Hispanic or Arab. White in 2016 America means white trash from the South who have negro blood and deny it.

Well America is diverse, unfortunately - I'm not praising it.
You got Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Jews and LGBT.
Just wondering how it can be pulled off.

Faggot.

I think they'd have to forget what they were. Take America for example, at Trump's rallies when there were protesters who were waving Mexican flags, that fucking astounded me. For Nationalism to properly work, they'd have to leave that crap behind and embrace the USA, the nation's culture, not try to bring their own. Multiethnicity isn't a problem. Trying to make different cultures live alongside each other that closely is shit. History demonstrates that several times. I wish SA could be unicultural.

genetically yes

Culture is more important

>Can it work and be socially accepted by a country that's diverse?
Nationalism - properly applied - is in fact the BEST way of uniting different ethnicities through the tool of shared values and common goals.

The problem is that the left is incapable of seeing that and the right either buys into the koolaid or thinks nation states can't work EXCEPT along ethnic lines.


In reality you simply need a moral and ideological consensus.

The rest is DEFINITELY a plus, but not *strictly* necessary.

Austria for example is Germanic, Magyar and Slavic in terms of ethnicity, but when we're not being driven into cucksheds it works nevertheless.

>Yes, because nationalism is about nationality, not race. As for the immigrants, ideally in a nationalist country there would be no illegal immigrants, but legal immigrants should be welcome.
That. America is a fairly decent example of this working well enough.

Nogs are a special case because nogs, but that doesn't invalidate the idea itself.

Nationalism is basically thinking your country comes first. If a migrant comes to a country and adopts the values and the culture, loves the country they have come to and provides for it then they could be considered nationalistic. I've met some pretty based poo-in-the-loos who really fucking like Australia and some absolute cucks born here who complain about stolen generation and boat people. I would rather live with the Indians then the cucks, I could probably teach them how to shit the Australian way.

>Culture is more important
Which is what OP is talking about I'm pretty sure.

If everyone signs up for the same basic ideas it works as long as you don't have genetic garbage or idiots throwing crowbars into wrenches.

In fact I'd argue that nationalism is the BEST means of safeguarding the interests of the Left AND right, but unfortunately lefts are too focused on asking for shit rather than building shit and won't ever accept that as valid.

I'm 100% European you kike.

>Nationalism - properly applied - is in fact the BEST way of uniting different ethnicities through the tool of shared values and common goals.
This is what baffles me - it's the most practical system towards success and peace.
>Which is what OP is talking about I'm pretty sure.
Yip. Now the only problem is how can you make sure that all the citizens sign up for the same basic ideas?
Can Nationalism then only work with an authoritarian figure in charge?

You're speaking of Civic Nationalism. In which case, yes, it can work so long as the Immigrants accept the culture and laws of the land. It used to work in the US with Europeans.

That's what he said, mutt.

It's impossible to be 100% European, being as we all originated in South Africa.

If you think that your ancestors have stayed in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years and never moved outside of it, you're a fucking idiot.

Some claim that the whites (specifically Boere, Rhodesian communities) here in South Africa are actually more white than most Europeans and Americans.

>Can Nationalism then only work with an authoritarian figure in charge?
No. You need strong laws and parties, not strong leaders. Laws last beyond a lifetime, monarchies or fascist states have the REALLY shitty issue of turning into a game of poker once the leader dies.

I mean, for a Sup Forums relevant example I doubt National Socialism would've survived past 1960 at most. After that Europe would probably have looked closer to how Hong Kong looks today.

Which in itself isn't bad but the main point remains. Relying on one leader means you're basically asking to have the entire thing shit itself to death once he gets deposed or dies.

Mao tried to prevent that by creating a massive party architecture, but despite that China became a huge fuckfest of officially sanctioned Capitalism dickriding once they realized they could.

Even before that, absolutism turned into a big-ass clusterfuck each time the previous monarch tried to do THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINGS LOL because unlike say in Feudalism there weren't any people around to contravene the faggotry, be it either out of self-interest (the faggot in Paris might not care but YOU need to feed your castle so best to ignore his bullshit as best as you can) or genuine understanding.


>Yip. Now the only problem is how can you make sure that all the citizens sign up for the same basic ideas?
1) Controlled immigration
2) Strong education
3) Cultural harmonization
>This is what baffles me - it's the most practical system towards success and peace.
Issue is that the hard Left only wants gimmedats and the hard Right still dreams of things that just aren't feasible.
I'm still amused the US apparently used to take some Irish holidays quite seriously.

Also, didn't you have some quite highly decorated ethnic Asians in the force?

>Reasonable arguments on HuffingthePaint.

How do I get out of Bizarro world?

As an American it can only work in a diverse country up to a certain point and then it simply creates too many conflicts of interest.

American nationalism normally took on a "European" tone. Listen to our military marches and design of military dress and despite all the notions of "freedom" we simply adopted a European style and flair. Our immigration was heavily reliant on Europeans as well and so this create a new sense of "Americanism" i.e. New Europeanism.

After Emancipation things became difficult as we had a new population that was not only alien but hostile to us. Africans attempted to adapt but, like any group of distinct foreigners, were pushed away and also formed their own social groups. So now you had a wart on the American Nationalism.

Now the borders of Mexico being so weak have allowed for mass immigration from Latin America. This in turn continued to undermine the notion of "Americanism" because, as we have seen at anti-American protests in the Southern states, the new Mexican immigrants are nationalistic only for Mexico. This also creates a new social group with their own agenda hostile to the original New European one.

What I was talking about is the fact that ALL humans originated in South Africa.

Has nothing to do with Boers or Rhodesians. (Though they are fucking based.)

Ethnic background is just supposed to be a cool background fact. It's retarded how Americans call themselves "Italian" or "Polish" when their family hasn't lived there in hundreds of years.

And yup. Forgot about Asians. They've always contributed to our society.

That Out of Africa theory is under a bit of flak recently, and that a second point of origin was in the area of Mesopotamia.

That's because the origins of American Nationalism are firmly rooted in Europe.

>It's retarded how Americans call themselves "Italian" or "Polish" when their family hasn't lived there in hundreds of years.
It always seemed a bit, iunno. Not 'divisive' per se, but still sort of... meh.
>Ethnic background is just supposed to be a cool background fact.
That makes sense to me.
>(Though they are fucking based.)
It's almost as if submitting humans to constant but survivable strive breeds the shitty people out of the populace.

>Mexico
It's still freaky to think of migrants that still retain connections and allegiance to their polity of origin.

Freaky in a 2real4me sense because we have this issue with the Turks here and it's SHITTY to say the least.
>And yup. Forgot about Asians.
For shame.
> They've always contributed to our society.
...hey. Now there's a fun project.

Initiate Asian History Month. They can't say it's racist because Asians aren't white, but it'd still raise awareness even if it (predictably) doesn't go through.

>It's still freaky to think of migrants that still retain connections and allegiance to their polity of origin.
Why is it a freaky? History has shown that people tend to form natural connections with those within their own historical, racial, ethnic, religious, and in modern times - national background.

It's just a normal part of life and it's why people who advocate mass immigration are quite honestly wrong. Enough mass immigration from one location, i.e. Mexico in this case and eventually they will simply replace the original population and god knows what happens then.

>Why is it a freaky
Because growing up most migrants I knew treated their homeland as "That place you visit" with
>historical, racial, ethnic, religious,
all this shit being used to form LOCAL communities that were nevertheless still connected to the mainstream culture.
>It's just a normal part of life and it's why people who advocate mass immigration are quite honestly wrong
Well yeah, I'm not disagreeing with that.

On a semi-related note, I think that's one issue India has.
1) Sihks honestly need their own nation
2) Hinduism is way too splintered to create common ground

If they reformed to adopt Smarta across the board they'd probably take off real fast.