re: Are you a nationalist?

quote:

---

I would argue that inorganic, forced multiculturalism is more dangerous to the United States than any form of nationalism. The former breeds a dangerous combination of victimhood and resentment, which are two ingredients needed for conflict.

---

The only instance in which this is of any significance was brought about via slavery

The overwhelming majority of voluntary immigrants and their descendants don't have a victim mentality. Unless it's one that is fabricated through indoctrination. It's inorganic as you would put it.

quote:

---

I think the point is when the media or the left refer to white nationalists they're not referring to the majority. They're referring to extremists. Not the people here who simply want America's interests first.

---

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. The media tries to label Trump supporters as extremists to make us look like Nazis. But, like you, they can't give one example of true extreme nationalism.

It's ok to be a Nationalist, in fact every American should be one, if you aren't, maybe you should look for somewhere else to live.

quote:

---

But, something definitely has changed in the recent times.

---

A bunch of blow hard leftists are making most immigrants look bad. I don't think what you see on TV reflects reality.

Maybe in some pockets on the west coast but I can tell you the immigrants here in TX love America and don't have a victim mentality.

quote:

---

Was it not the suppression of ethnic nationalism that led to world war 1?

---

Absolutely. The inability to control nationalist movements by the multi-cultural imperial powers, in this case Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, meant that the region was a powderkeg.

But both imperial administrations were remarkable at including the aristocracy of the various people they ruled, although Austria-Hungary had developed a parallel administration between Austria and Hungary, with the Austrian side being more cosmopolitan in its administrations (with Czechs playing a prominent role) and Hungary, which forced a policy of Magyarization, which was heavily resented by minorities who lived in Hungarian controlled administrations.

The Ottoman administration was similarly organized, with Greeks and Bosnians playing a large role until 1900 or so, when ethnic Turks began to resent the outsize influence Christians were beginning to have. This isn't to mention the role that the British had in developing Arab nationalism.

What would have been the right way to deal with these movements? Self-contained autonomy might have worked, but those empires also had to deal with Wilson, who was anti-imperialist, when those systems were mostly stable for the areas they ruled. For example, it took nearly 100 years for the areas formerly ruled by the Ottomans to reach the same percentage of world GDP that those regions had in 2014, which would be an argument for the imperial polity used by the Ottomans.

Even then, the ethnic unity Balkan people had (indeed, Black Hand had Muslim and Christian members) quickly dissolved, which represents the inherent problem with ethnic nationalist notions developed after the Peace of Westphalia. Specifically, there are very few areas that were oriented completely by religion, ethnicity, and language. The imperial powers engaged in large population transfers before WWI in order to aid some homogeneity (I have a map somewhere on my comp, but I've posted it here before) as a way of dealing with some of those tensions, but even then, those imperial powers ruled over incredibly diverse groups of people.

quote:

---

A bunch of blow hard leftists are making most immigrants look bad. I don't think what you see on TV reflects reality.

---

I hope you are correct. But the massive crowds of people holding up foreign flags tends to make me doubt.

quote:

---

Maybe in some pockets on the west coast but I can tell you the immigrants here in TX love America and don't have a victim mentality.

---

I do think that you are correct that our MSM greatly over estimates the uniformity of Hispanic thought and almost talks about them as if they are the same monolith blacks are.

quote:

---

I mean, ya know. If every other word out of one side's mouth is some variation of "evil white man", you're a tard if you are white and don't take notice.

---

Do you think the majority of non white people think this?

quote:

---

They think giving a penny of foreign aid makes you a globalist cuck

---

Yeah, you’re probably making that up.

You probably just disagree on whether it’s in our interests, and you’re trusting some fake intellectual bureaucrat and they aren’t.

quote:

---

No. I don't.

But, I think a lot more do than one should be comfortable with.

---

Can't say I disagree there

But to be honest those people are the fringe left IMO

It has such little traction that they have to get white people alongside them to champion the message

quote:

---

And you know for a fact that there are people here that whine about the country eventually being not majority white.

---

So out of 300 million people we are talking about maybe a few 1000?

It's hardly even worth mentioning but yet it's brought up time and time again by Liberals labeling Trumps supporters.

When did Nationalist and racist start meaning the same thing?

quote:

---

The term in the common parlance has come to be a synonym of patriotism, but there is a reason that nationalism is looked at the way it is, in Europe for example, because it is specifically tied to a violent history, including WWII.

---

The distinction between patriotism and nationalism is not a difficult one to understand, but it CAN be subtle and is not necessarily known to the average person.

But when the distinction is explained and the speaker continues to cling to the “nationalist” terminology, it is not unreasonable to infer that the speaker EMBRACES those distinguishing characteristics.