slug.com slug.com

11 6

North America does not have the same history with "ethnic nationalism" that Europe and the rest of the world does. When we, in Canada and the US, talk about "nationalism", we are usually talking about "civic nationalism," which means that all citizens, regardless of background or ethnicity, can patriotically put the interests of their own nation first. We can all love our country and defend it under the banner of "love of nation".

We also use "nationalism" in N. America to distinguish between national interests versus "globalist" interests.

"Nationalism" in the rest of the world has a negative connotation for good reason. Historically, it usually devolved into the the slicing and dicing of the population into "good guys" and "bad guys". This resulted in the persecution of a certain group portrayed as "the enemy" of the people. So if you were a "nationalist" in Germany in the 1930s, that usually meant you were an anti-semite.

So when we talk about "nationalism" today, let us make sure we're all on the same page. I'm all for civic nationalism, not ethnic (or any other) nationalism.

"Nationalism" in North America is not (and should not be) a dirty word.

Do you agree?

  • 21 votes
  • 2 votes
  • 3 votes
CRBG 7 Apr 10
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

If we are to have globalism then it needs to be constitutionalized as it is in the US with it's intend entirely. It has to belong to the people of the world not the elite.

Interesting. What does Globalism look like? No nations? no borders? one world currency? one world government? global elections? Or is my imagination going too far?

0

Globalists intend to destroy the US Constitution--they will do it any way that they can. Nationalism of any kind is anti-globalism. There are many countries that have been invaded by hordes of globalist sponsored ethnic populations who are incapable and/or unwilling to assimilate with the host country. Ethnic nationalism is appropriate in such instances, as is "civic" nationalism

2

Real Americans first! My white Christian ancestors didn't pour their blood into this soil so that the globalists could send immigrant hordes to take my birthright. If it doesn't conform, round it up! That's the only solution.

The Catholics have already done enough damage!

Who are the "real Americans"? The ones with white Christian ancestors?

@CRBG That's one rule of thumb. I certainly know a globalist when I see one. And they and the extremely dishonest press are the enemies of the people!

@CRBG Yup same as Canada

@fisherman0707 So as an immigrant, I can never be a "real Canadian"?

1

Ethnicity notwithstanding, the word “nationalism” was co-opted by the left decades ago in a largely successful attempt to marginalize and de-legitimize their political and ideological opponents. The “ethnicity” component is merely a convenient cudgel the left used whenever there is a wedge issue that fits the bill.

0

I have problems with civic nationalism but not with nationalism as the best way to think about anti-globalism. Civ-nat seems too friendly with globalism and open borders, the idea being that "multi-culturalism" can work within a civic framework and even given geopolitical and geocommercial expansionism. Growth is necessarily good, free-trade, population move to where the jobs are, the production moves to where people are, etc.; the civic nature of a nation will remain stable no matter what people populate its towns, cities, communities and factory/office jobs. I'm skeptical.

I think Nations are populations with a mostly shared identity, and the land they control. Nationalism isn't about what best for "the country," but about maintaining that shared identity. It's an idea that requires a certain amount withdrawal and introspection regarding trade and migration. It requires far less concern about growth and GDP than about prosperity and well-being for "The People." Governments of Nations are tools "of The People" for a purpose, the preservation of the sovereign People. We're not interchangeable economic units; we're countrymen; we're A People. The economy is our tool, not our purpose. Trade is a tool, not a purpose. Nations of Peoples don't need prefixes and hyphens to sum up identity, or to derive meaning from the part they play in its prosperity and preservation.

America can assimilate trickles of migrants on a near continuous basis. It can TOLERATE waves on occasion. At some point, though, the waves must be defended against and reduced again to a trickle--even stopped--so that the American identity can assimilate the Other. It would help if we'd drop the bloody prefixes and hyphens.

I agree with most of what you're saying, govols. I agree with the need for a common 'national identity', common values, and a common love of country, flag, and constitution.

However, I believe it's possible to be a civic nationalist who is simultaneously opposed to multiculturalism and who supports the very strict narrowing of immigration doors. I'm a civic nationalist. I'm a legal immigrant, and I'm not white, but I want that wall, and I want all illegal border jumpers deported.

@CRBG I'm not certain "ethnic-nationalism" is required for "civic-nationalism" to have a foil or to be one; I do have an idea that a common identity might require an ethnic majority to be its cornerstone. I'm not sure American identity will persevere with a majority minority population.

3

My “Nationalism” is a Western Cultural Nationalism, based on those principles laid down by my nations Founders and Framers, where individual sovereignty and limited government are the corner stones. I have nationalist pride in what my nation has achieved under the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Here, here! That's my nationalism, too! It's one that unites despite diversity.

1

I think the national identity plays a major part. With an identity that holds that all life is valuable and worthy of respect, it argues against foreign aggression and opportunism. A healthy examination of the Spanish-American war by Americans will suggest some shame in how we handled our foreign relationships even though we expanded our territory nationally. I doubt the same is true regarding China and Tibet. The great advantage of civic nationalism is that it requires people to examine themselves as more than just an ethnicity but also as a idea and a philosophy, much like a religious organization.

2

I prefer "patriotism". "Nationalism" is used by too many, especially regressive leftists, as a pejorative.

Yes, I think I'm going to have to use "patriotism" from now on and hope the left doesn't turn THAT into a dirty word, too.

@CRBG Mmmm. They already have. Patriotism is a dirty word in leftist circles. ...At some point, you just have to decide to use the language and realize that everyone's vocabulary/glossary is stretched/filtered/colored by the hearer's life experience and biases.

0

I treat ethnic nationalism with higher regard than civic. Why? Because Whites will be more and more marginalized as Jewish, Indian, Chinese, and Muslim groups. start to push ingroup policy that benefits them. They are already doing it. You can't ignore rhetoric like this [timesofisrael.com] . If you look at the Natives in the country they are on the verge of racial/tribal extinction at 5% they are no longer viable as a community to carry on. In parts of the country Whites are less than half. In the the next 5 to 10 years if current immigration projections hold and that includes non legals whites will drop to about 30 percent. This is dangerous precedent as traditionally christian whites will now be slaves to all other groups that hold majority influence on polticial parties and will act as lobbyists and politicians of all parties will be forced to pander to them.

Hi Fredrick. It is true that in some areas in the US (such as big cities), whites are becoming a minority, especially Christian whites. In some cities, they are already a minority. I truly do believe that immigration levels should slow down, at least. However, I do not believe that if they become a minority, they'll end up being "slaves to all other groups".

I'm not white, but I love Western culture and values, and I defend them. I'm a legal immigrant who believes in full integration. There are many like me.

I'd like Americans (and Canadians) to demand more integration from legal immigrants who are already here and to deport illegal immigrants who jumped the border. The latter have no right to do it by appealing to pity.

@CRBG Integration doesn't work. If it did then Israel, Japan, China, ME would all be following the same model. People like carrying dead peoples baggage ie Culture and tradition. I'm first generation my parents were immigrants. But they were not of the Anglo Saxon tribe. But the modus operandi was near similar to western Europe. Even right now, the Chinese seem to model and lust after Western luxuries but secretly speak of not renting to whites. Speaking of whites as stupid. Laughing at how they are able to buy up their land. How do you insure they integrate what you cannot see. I have seen Indians secretly put plans together to bring in a rush of Indians into a company. When anything gains mass it has a massive gravitational pull. Apply the same weak force mechanics to society and you will see the result is not pretty.

No. Immigration now must stop. A 10 year moratorium on immigration is integral for the country to heal. Not one person or snivel servant has provided any viable data on why we need immigration? Except the lie that its needed to maintain pensions? Really. In that case then immigration is needed indefinitely. How much is needed? What age demographics are needed. Are whites allowed to migrate on mass to Africa, China, etc? Why is it always the west.

2

This is a point I fully agree with and I find the idea that ethnic nationalism is some massive essential threat to the west to be frankly laughable. The kind of people concerned with ethnic nationalism are fringe sorts, and their population is a fraction of a fraction.

The problem is, people will typecast toxic people as the majority in an attempt to fear monger by telling minorities that they should be terrified and only their solidarity and vote will lead to their salvation. What manifests from that is the continued propagation of this myth in an effort to gain power is a deepened divide in the citizenship which leads to new fractures for race baiters to attempt to exploit.

I'm pleased to see that people are starting to notice the truth of this and that there's an increasing level of pushback from the targeted minority groups when they realize they're being herded and milked like cattle by people who only notice they exist during election cycles.

Thanks for your insight, Mr_Vasilios. I agree that the left is exaggerating the numbers of "real" white nationalists out there in order to spread fear among minorities so that their ideology is offered as salvation. And, yes, that rhetoric gets louder every four years. Candace Owens addressed this phenomenon in her speech yesterday. It's a power play.

@CRBG at the core of it, it's all a power play. They're doing everything they can to get ahead of potential voter trends such as softening immigration or restoration of rights to felons. If they champion these groups they can harvest the votes. It's nothing about morality and everything about maintaining power.

If you look, they started losing the African American vote, so they switched to pro immigration porous borders policies to try to reap the goodwill of the Hispanic population and thus win their votes. It's a pandering game.

3

It is very telling how the left has taken the word "nationalism" as an overt reference to Nazism in order to impugn the motivations of their political rivals. Telling in how they latch on to the word Nationalist yet they somehow omit its object "socialist" as in the following:
The full name of the party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (English: National-Socialist German Workers' Party) for which they officially used the acronym NSDAP.
They accuse the political Right of being like Nazis - evil "nationalists" bad. Socialism good.

The left is all about language and rhetoric. That's part of why they can't be reasoned with. They take any argument, run it through a fallacy generator, deconstruct the newly minted rhetoric, and smugly declare victory.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:29292
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.