Nationalism

that text glow in the last picture is nazbol gang tier

fuck off fascist

Last time you got cucked by people who called themselves anticapitalists while advocating the class collaboration, how are you going to ensure it won't happen again especially considering there are already many "anti-capitalists" on Holla Forums and such who couldn't define capitalism and socialism for shit and will therefore jump on a dick of any self-proclaimed anti-capitalist who will just advocate social democracy with jew-ovening characteristics?

Nationalism, like capitalism, must be destroyed.

Nationalism isn't what you think it is. You aren't supporting your country by being a nationalist, you're merely supporting the modern nation state that emerged in the 18th century.

Even though they oppose each other

fuck off cancer

No, they don't. Idpol is part of capitalism. Nationalism is the ultimate form of idpol.

it's a step up from national capitalism honestly

There exists good nationalism that isn't Bourgeois like the national liberation movements of the third world and of course there exists bad nationalism like American and British imperialism, nazi chauvinism, the separatists from ex-Yugoslavia, and the Ukrainian Azov. To claim that all nationalism is bad is a really ignorant over generalization .

this

I may not be the biggest fan of nationalism but I can see that the black front is a large improvement from the NSDAP

The national liberation movements of the third world turned into bourgeois movements, worked closely with multinationals based in the first world in the context of a neocolonial economy, and purged the actual socialists they worked with to achieve nominal decolonization. This isn't 1960 anymore, so why the hell are you still defending them?

because they're the only current alternative option to islamofascists and an American puppet state (probably run by theocrats)

Fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice, can't get fooled again.

op here not a fascist(at least not anymore)I just want to educate fascists and a good way to get fascists into actual socialism is through left wing nationalism

In the current events it doesn't fit anywhere because it only generates division and sectarianism which is what perpetuates capitalism.

In a communist world it doesn't fit anywhere because Mohammad won't take your job.

A honest question, do you only support the natlib movements of the Third World, or those of countries like Scotland and Catalonia too?

Not him but Catalonia would be much better with out Spain and they would be socialist as fuck. I don't know about Scotland because their economy is like 90% oil.

Catalonia was a functioning state before Franco seize it by force.

Yup, just as expected, Holla Forums vultures came into this thread to grab people with the false promise of "Sure, I'm fine with socialism - as long as I get my genocide, you can have your co-ops or whatever".

No friend, that won't work. A genuine fascist will ultimately never be able to stand anything further than socdem - and he can claim all day he's for "isolationism", but imperialism is always the highest stage of capitalism.

Capitalism is an international menace, and thus needs the workers to join together internationally.

All of Iberia should be united under Syndicalism

Scotland has been coopted and Catalonia is long forgotten. Lexit is a NL/NR movement in a sense and France has a long NL tradition. Germany has straßerists and Zimana and Anticap in Poland.

National Syndicalism is better. Viva Ramos Arriba España!

...

I don't know man I was pretty fashy at one point

Its pretty inconsistent to be anti idpol but pro nationalism, in fact I'd say Nationalism is more inherently tied with idpol than feminism is.

why doesn't Holla Forums have an asserist flag ?

it's looks cool as all hell

BO hasn't added any new flag for while because he's a lazy piece of shit. Also that's not a Asserist flag anyways.

who was best ?

Otto Asser, Gregor Asser or rohm ?

Nationalism encourages anti-civicism and parochalism. It's frankly a primitive attitude that has nothing to do with rational organic society.

Google Bookchin.

Otto because pic related.

NATIONALISM!
Or How to spook everyone into fighting eachother, instear of organizing for a world revolution

FUCK OFF!

Why are there multiple fascist threads up?

...

Too bad Man displays parochialism in all societies everywhere and at all times. A major exception to this seems to be a sub-segment of the West today.

But I'm sure nothing goes wrong when you autistically conceive an entire society in your head by using a simplified model of what humans are and ignoring human nature.

Nationalism started as a left-wing movement. See French Revolution.

even started*

(I'm not disagreeing with you)

That's not true though. It was exactly the kind of anti-parochalism that cities and municipal democracy had given birth to, that made made the French revolutionaries extend voting rights to women, abolish slavery and racial discrimination and end the criminilaization of homosexuality and municipalized the economy, all a century and a half before any find of feminist, abolitionist or gay-rights movements saw the light of day.
Such tendencies were also reflected in the Diggers and Leveler's movement in England the century before, and even as early as the Guild-based townships of northern Italy (starting as early as the Forlí commune in the 8th century) and later Germany and Flanders, that likewise expanded upon women's rights, the rights of the poor ect.

Indeed, in the cities we had found a way to transcend primitive "first" nature, and enter into the rational, organic "second nature", one marked by anti-parochalism, confederalism and libertarian cosmopolitanism.

So sure, nationalism might be appealing to the lesser animals that Man used to be, but

The french revolution was not a nationalist revolution, especially not in the modern sense of that term. As written above, the ethics of the sectional assemblies was based upon the ideals of citizenship before all else and cosmopolitianism.

*But not so much for the civilized Citizen that we evolved into

Not fascism.

take the civic nationalism pill

People have been sucking corporate cock for so long that when they stopped, wiped away the cum, and asked why we aren't taking care of our own people, they get decried as "nationalist".

The French Revolutionaries also imprisoned and killed the aristocracy and the clergy, and were radically against any displays of the Ancien Régime in society (e.g. changing the calendar, burning and confiscating churches, creating the "Cult of Reason" and the "Cult of the Supreme Being", etc). The tone of the political discourses and actions reeks of us vs them.

All this put together just means that the French Revolution is just yet another example of parochialism.

There is no true anti-parochial nature to humans, as in its most anti-parochial display it is radically parochial against those who show signs of parochialism. That is, the us vs. them dichotomy will never cease to be a thing.

Also, the French Revolution was nationalistic because nationality became the way someone was defined to belong to "us". The French Revolution was deeply anti-semitic and anti-catholic precisely because Jews and Catholics were seen as external forces controlling the lives of the French. That's even why one of the first measures after the revolution was that all priests swore allegiance to the constitution and not to the pope.

Just passing by and saying Hi from Russian left wing Stalinism.

Now you're colflating a lot of different groups with each other. Remember that the French Revolution had everything from Gerondists, to Montagnards to the Enragées, and that's just on the republican side.

The Jacobins might well have been nationaists in nature, since they supported a centralized French nation-state, but they enjoyed politcal power primarily through the support of rich entrepreneurs.
The Sans-Culottes, which were simple poor citizens and who were much more numerous than the Jacobins ever were supported the complete federalization of France, some even demanding that no authority could enforce their will upon the sectional assemblies at all. Beyond that they demanded the emancipation of all "citizens" thus why black people were also granted full citizenship and why slaves were freed.

Their opposition to the arstocracy and the clergy was not born out of any inherent tribalism, but rather an opposition to the function and tyranny of the nobles and the clergy. Jacques Roux, for example, was a clergyman and was hugely popular amongst the sans-culottes, so the simple tribalist explaination doesn't cut it.

Again, the driving factor of the French revolution was citizenship, not ethnicity. Citizenship was what defined the "us" in this case and the "them" was usually a part of the same nationality and ethnicity, being french nobles.

There is little evidence of this on a institutional level. The Jew persecuted during the Reign of terror (which was perpetrated by the Jacobins, not the popular Enragées, if I may add) were persucuted for being bankers rather than being jews. Thus function rather than tribalist origin plays the greater role.

No, Catholics wree not. Catholics wer enot executed for being catholics, clergymen were executed for being agents of the church. The difference is immense.

And just to add to this, let me remind you that almost all actors participating in the French revolution were Catholic believers in some fashion (even if they were only Deists), and thus the idea of Catholic persecution is ridiculous.

Something faggots that know nothing about how society works, created to fap to.

I didn't say the tribalism was based on ethnicity. What I meant to say was that it was based on class, religion and nationality, where religion and nationality are intrinsically mixed with one another. And I'm using nationality as citizenship.
Also, you could even say that class is linked to nationality, as the high nobility and clergy were looked like "not true French". This is not that far-fetched as the loyalty of the nobility was to their family, which is multinational; and the loyalty of the clergy was to Rome, which is foreign.

Read what the philosophes wrote

Tell me, for instance, how these women were "agents of the Church":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Compiègne

Tell me what do you gain from removing all religious references from daily French life, and is not doing so "being an agent of the Church" or aiding the "tyranny of the Church" in any way?

The revolution was anti-catholic beyond belief. They did not simply remove the clergy from power nor suppress their views: they literally shut it down and aimed at eradicating Catholicism from France.

They were not Catholic. They were at most deist. To be a deist is definitely not to be a Catholic. Protestants are closer to Catholicism than Deists, and Protestants are not Catholics.

Tbh Tito's "socialist patriotism" is literally just socialism + civic nationalism and there's nothing wrong with that.

Tito is opportunist and revisionist scum. Only true left wing Stalinism is the right combination of nationalism and communism. Where nation is in service to the proletariat class.

That is not true either. There are plenty of people who share religion, but who don't share nationality. If Germans are protestants, are then all protestants Germans? That certainly is not how it seems to work.

Again, you're ignoring the examples of clergymen and even noblemen who participated in the French revolution on the republican side and who wer epopular amongst the revolutionaries, Jaques Roux and Bornaparte being excellent examples. Thus the conflict must be understood in terms of functions rather than tribalist origin. Being a "true Frenchman" in this sense had nothing to do with origin, but about Ethics and function. That kind of nationalism, if that is what you want to call it, has nothing to do with the term we refer to when we say "nationalism" in the 21st century

Which philosophers?
And beyond that, tell me of instances of persecution of the Jews, in the very period where Jews enjoyed the most liberty they had ever enjoyed in French history. They even had it better during the reign of terror than they would later have it druing the 3rd republic.

They were nuns. Meaning clergy. Is there something I am missing here?

The revolution was in no sense anti-catholic. It was not as if believers - beyond religious extremists that usually were also royalists - were executed en masse simply for being religious. Not even during the reign of terror, which saw huge amounts of almost arbitrary executions saw excutions carried out against people simply for keeping faith in any particular religion.

Sure, it was hugely secular, because it believed in civic egalitarianism over religious chauvenism, but this does not mean that religious life or expression was at all supressed in France. Indeed, the sections of Paris largely kept the old calendar.

State atheism as you would later see in Russia or China simply wasn't a thing. At the insttutional level, all things were neutral and secular, for such was the anti-parochial ethics of the French revolutionaries. They were opening up the country and making a common democratic homeland that jews and muslims and others could also participate in.

And again, you're talking about millions of people. If all of them were anti-catholic and deists, France could not be a predominately Catholic nation today.
That simply would make no sense.

In Revolutionary France! The concepts of us vs them are not set in stone.

Just like in every war there are defectors from the enemy country. They are used as tokens against the enemy. Yet in every war there is a clear us vs them narrative going on. Thus, this fact is meaningless and to be expected.

Voltaire is the most notable.

So, you are confirming they were anti-Catholic. When I read "agents of the Church" I thought you meant they were somehow conspiring to overthrow the constitution and put the traditionalist monarchy back in place. These nuns were just against the country wide shut down of all monasteries, which in itself is an anti-Catholic measure.

So, you're saying a Catholic priest who chooses not to cease to recognize the authority of the Pope (that is, who ceases to remain a Catholic) is branded an extremist and thus liable to be imprisoned or killed at will… Well, how is not that anti-Catholic, again?

Of course not. The French population was overwhelmingly Catholic. It was the "enlightened" elite that tried to remove such expression. But as history has shown many times, you can't simply change society by decree, even though it might help.

The revolution was championed by the philosophes and other upper middle class people. The poor only joined because there was a widespread famine at the time, high taxes and they were promised gibs. Most of the poor were not anti-catholic nor anti-traditionalist.

Honestly this is one of the weak points this board tards over. National consciousness is something hard to get rid of. Even those who say they hate nationalism or patriotism tard over their country

I.E an anti-nat. Swede once sperged on me after I criticized Sweden. People generally aren't happy when someone gets in that is against the nation state or the nation itself.

the Bolsheviks had a strong anti-nationalism, given they worked with random separatists and ethnic nationalists (i.e. internationalism)

also whether China is a "nation" can be debated…

hey, americansfr. what's up. or are you just using his stuff. Keeping it real? :)

Were Jaques Roux and Napoleon Bornaparte tokens used for propaganda or were they integral and central actors in the French revolution?
You're comparison does not make sense to nationalist tokenism, primarily because that wasn't what happened back in the day.

Fine, if by "anti-Catholic" you mean "against the Catholic Church as an institution", then yeah, sure the French revolution was very much anti-Catholic. Which is fine. The Church was a tyrannical organization that had supressed the people for centuries and was a direct threat to democracy. As long as you don't conflate being against the Catholic Church with being against Catholic believers (latin rite Christians), then there's no problem.

>. The poor only joined because there was a widespread famine at the time, high taxes and they were promised gibs. Most of the poor were not anti-catholic nor anti-traditionalist.

By your own definition of anti-catholicism, it was indeed the poorest orders of society, the sans-culottes, who were most against the Catholic Church and who raided monasteries and churches in Paris. It was also those, the Enragées who demanded full citizenship to women, Federalization of France (meaning an end to the Nation-state) and pressed for emanicpation of the slaves. It is indeed these lowest orders of French society who were the most radical in terms of emancipatory ideology, as seen when they got rid of the Girondists for being too lenient with the nobility and the clerics.
Again, these people were far more popular than the more "moderate" (although far more militantly atheist and nationalist) Jacobins.

It depends. Majority of people in Russia would join National-Communist movement. If you ask polls.

The revolutionaries were too lenient with the Church.

Some national traditions, like Soviet, are international and progressive. Russia well known to have a hoard of nationals with lelf-hate and the hate of Russian nation especially. Some nations national traits are international.

self-hate

How many countries did YOU liberate from the Nazis user?

Napoleon was a deist.
Jacques Roux renounced allegiance from the pope.

lol, how is that any different?

The poor were mostly not anti-catholic. It was the elite behind the revolution which was. It is not the poor who are drafting laws and ordering the police and military around to arrest priests and seize churches.

Hmm.

See? Pure parochialism.

The important part about Napoleon was that he was a nobleman, who was a central actor in the French Revolution was and was a popular figure rather than just a token of propaganda.
Roux likewise was a man of faith and had his origin in the clergy.

It's the difference between opposing the State of Germany and it's agents and hating Germans.
The difference is immense.

Well, yes they did. They were not some kind of apolitical horde that needed to be lead by some kind of revolutionary elite. Indeed, the Jacobins and the sans-culottes often came to blows, because the sections of Paris, the assemblies in which the sans-culottes would meet twice a week to discuss decrees, arrange festivals and regulate the neighbourghood economy would often circumvent the Paris Commune and the national convention, and deal with each other directly.
It was here, in these direct democratic assemblies, that they by vote came to the conclusions to demand women's suffrage and increased persecution of the Catholic Church and the full abolition of the French Monarchy. It was amongst these assemblies that Jaques Roux was particularily popular, while he was mocked at the National Convention.

So you really underestimate the ideological convictions of the lower classes of France and how pivotal they were in the French revolution, and how well organized they were, fully independent of both the Montagnards and the Gerondists.

And some Jews helped the nazis. Again, defectors are always welcome.

By seizing, shutting down or burning churches? By killing nuns who just want to be in their fucking monastery, and deeming them as "traitorous to the revolution"? By attempting to remove every Catholic symbol from French society (even a freaking cross could not be displayed)? This is not hating Catholics?
This is like nuking Germany, and saying you are just against the German state, not the German people. You can even evacuate the cities, if your next remark is going to be "oh, but that would kill them".

I don't. Note the mostly in my posts. They weren't even close to being the majority. The overwhelming majority was Catholic.

Yeah. Stalin''s Socialism in one state. And his "great patriotic war." I honestly fail to see where the Communists should be globalists narrative comes from since most Communist states where hardly globalist unless you consider Mao's third worldism as form of that

How many Jews were central figures in the Nazi movement? How many non-Germans?

THe answer should point to a very clear difference in how these two movements worked. One was informed by ethics, the other by tribalist origin. One thing you can escape, the other you cannot.

By killing nuns, who refused to denounce their sworn alliegance to a institution that was actively against the esablishment of democracy. Again, this would be like taking down German military bases and killing all German soldiers who refuse to renounce their alliegance to the German state, rather than killing all those who are ethnically German of origin.

This is clear because the very people who ordered and carried out these church burnings were latin-rite (catholic) Christians themselves, and thus understood the clear distinction between the Catholic church and christian faith.
The Sans Culottes were the vast majority of society, and were also those most militant in demanding the abolition of the Catholic Church. Thus why the Hébertists, one of the most radical anti-clerical groups were compromised mostly of commoners and why Jaques Hérbert was so immensily popular amongst the poor that he rose to political prominence himself, even though he was himself a lowly commoner.

So yes, those who were against the church were the vast majority, and most church burnings were not carried out by a proffesional army at the behest of the National Convention, but rather by the sections and communes themselves.
In almost all senses, the lower orders of French society was much more radical in terms of ideology than the "revolutionary elite", presicely because of France's long history of municipalist guild-based democracy.

fuck off fascist

your flag is shit fuck you

fuck off fascist

fascism

Fuck you
Suck a dick
wubalubadubdub

I wouldn't mind a socialist - nationalist goverment collition as long as most companies are transformed into worker cooprtives.

This is the textbook definition of tribalism/parochialism. You kill people because they are associated with people you don't like, even though they did nothing wrong against you themselves. It is akin to banning all Muslims from France because of the recent terrorist attacks. Thank you.

Nothing else is needed to prove my point.

The only socialism that worked so far. If westerners would not be brainwashed in schools on the topic we would have a nice Stalinist world revolution already.

>Stalin''s Socialism*********
>The only socialism that worked so**********************************************************************************************************
citation needed*

What is your source other than cold war propaganda? Do you use any?

That's not quite parochalism, and that's not quite what happened.
It would be like banning all members of ISIS from entering France in light of the recent attacks, even though they personally have not done anything against the French public.

If this is a show of Parochalism, then your original statement has moved into the realm of being a banal irrelevant truism, because anything and everything constitutes parochalism.

...

i was gonna call you a tankie cock sucker but then i saw the dubs.

Parochialism/tribalism is to show either strong ingroup preference or outgroup derogation. This is best seen through the biases people show when analyzing issues. In the case of the nuns, they did violate a law but the punishment is not in any way proportional to their infraction. I'm sure if they were members of the Cult of Reason or whatever the French liked at the time they were killed, nothing of the sort would happen. They would be evicted, they could even be jailed or pay a fine - but they would not be sentenced to death. Such a sentence is remarkably barbarous for its time.

And this type of thing is pervasive during the French Revolution, as it is in all type of political disputes. That is why you had Carl Schmitt bluntly saying that every political community defines a "friend" and an "enemy", which should be regarded as a "us" vs "them". This distinction can be defined on several grounds: religion, ethnicity, nationality, values, etc. This is what defines the group itself. Also, this enemy is not necessarily someone specific you hate, what has been throughout history called inimicus, but a "public enemy", an abstraction of a category of people who are against you, your way of being and your set of values, which has been called hostis. You don't even have to hate the hostis, just realize that it is a threat and protect against it.

Liberal discourse (largely followed by most on the left), even though it explicitly rejects these distinctions, is also afflicted by them. They do have a clear "enemy". You do see a clear ingroup preference/outgroup derogation in political debate. The current "enemy" in mainstream discourse is the "far-right", the "nazis", the people who accept the distinction "friend" vs "enemy" no questions asked. But if often quickly goes to class and "rich people", "bankers", etc. are the enemy. Also, liberals, for instance, are much less critical and demanding when information comes from a known liberal than from a conservative; and vice-versa. This is even why these chans are over sensitive to shills.

And all of this might seem trivial to you as it is to me. But a lot of people really reject everything I just said: and I wouldn't be surprised if you did as well.

that doesnt make the nationalist, user…

the USSR was a multinationalist state, and acknowledged such even in WWII propaganda. There were propaganda focused on ethnic Ukrainians saying to free 'their' Ukraine from German fascists for example.

And all this means that to reject nationalism you cannot argue it's illegitimate since people are being tribalistic but rather state why nationality is an improper criterion to define a political unit. The same would apply to class (communists), ethnicity (nazis), religion (islamists), etc.

Indeed, the USSR was the uprising of minorities against Russians in Russia.

Globalism is little too radical for leftypol but i support the destruction of national states. In this world where MAD is reality we have no other options.

Fine.
If we're to water down the definition of parochalism and how it has functioned historically to such a degreed that the hatred fostered in the heart of serf towards the the king, a relationship marked by a real tangible political antagonism become the same kind of hatred or isolationism that is fostered between two people who hate each other not for any reasons of domination, difference in ethical values or economic factors but because of a difference in mythical kinship, then even by this sense of word which has been scrubbed for any and all of practical meaning, nationalism and religious fundementalism still ssticks out by not being based on funtion and values (what one does) but rather mythical origin (what one supposedly is).

A clear distinction between these two, the civilized Greek ethical "parochalism" and the primitive tribal kinship-based parochalism exists and can readily be measured in history. Let's forget that the sans-culotted were adamant that the flemish people could have self-administration like any other sectional assembly of the republic, with only the Jacobins pushing for a truly "French" state.

Your whole post is an ode to the claim that nationality and religion are not good criteria to draw the boundaries of political groups. That's not surprising given that you are on this website. But these have been as important or perhaps more than values and ethics throughout history. Whenever the political beliefs of somebody else make absolute no sense to you, i.e. that you find their definitions and what they care about to be meaningless, then it's because they are using criteria you don't accept to define the political group.

Nationalist does not mean one homogeneous nation. That's ethnic nationalism. Nationalism is just extreme patriotism or love for the country. I mean Soviet Nationalism is so well known "for the motherland, comrades" "Mother Russia." TBH it just seems the Russians are just very nationalistic people. Even today part of the reason there is problems between Ukraine and Russia is that some in Russia still feel the Ukrainians and the Ukraine are a part of Russia

That's moving the goalposts. The contention was not that mythical kinship has not been important or a significant political factor. At no point did I say that.
My point is that it is not universally so and it's an irrationality that undermines our potential as a civilized species.
Sure , they have been important in baser and more primitive societies without the civilizing and rationalising influence of city assemblies.
To deny this is to deny a huge chunk of our history and to be blind to the motivations of the French sans culottes and the plebians under the brothers Grachii.
To say that we cannot overcome our baser nature just because we often have failed to is to deny the plethora of times we actually have done so, especially in the age where emancipatory ethics were born in the hearts of European commoner to such a degree that powerful elites even to this day has to pay lip-service to democracy and universal civic rights.

Unironically this. Neoliberal acceleration is the way to go.

Again, why do you claim political boundaries based on religion or nationality are primitive? Sounds arbitrary to me.

It's primitive in the literal sense of the word because kinship defined the community of paleolithic tribes, whether these tribes were real tangible blood relations or of mythical religious kinship (as seen with the Hebrews, for example). When the rise of cities came so did the notion of citizenship, and thus community went from a conservative group based mostly on tradition to an innovative and rational society, that was not religiously chauvinist and increasingly not ethnically chauvinist, right down to the Romans valuing the ethnically neutral "Romaness" in which all ethnicities could participate over their more direct ethnic "Latiness".

Of course the city in the classical sense has been reduced to the political periphery by the natipn-state, and thus as a result we've returned to more primitive attitudes of associating with our mythical kinship groups, that are closely tied to a state in most instances.

So allegiance to one's family is primitive? Does that mean it is bad in some way? Because if it doesn't, calling it primitive is really meaningless.

Also, "innovative" and "rational" societies came way, way after the first cities. The West, actually, was defined by tradition until the Enlightenment and even then it took 200 years to die off.

Whether it's good or bad is a matter for debate, but what it certainly is, is primitive meaning that primitive society was not based on political discourse, ethics or philosophy, but to strict obedience to whatever elders you were related to, wether right or wrong. I will leave it to you to consider if such blind obedience is truly a good thing or not.

Cities were marked by the fact that people gathered and discussed concrete policies and the arrangement of public affairs. Traditionalism is marked by the opposite, meaning a strict adherence to whatever tradition is already predetermined. In this sense, traditionalism was fully dead in southern Europe (along with most hunter gatherer tribes) by 500 bc and had instead been replaced by cities where popular assemblies established the law of the land through discussion rather than adherence to tradition. After the fall of Rome this effect is increased in European cities, even reaching out to the European country side and from the 8th century onward the medieval communes begin to confederalize into protective leagues resulting later in the Diggers movement, the hussite movement and the Hanseatic League. By the 11th century with the establishment of the Things in the furthest regions of the Norse world, European tribalism and thus traditionalism is entirely dead.

It only remained as a shadow of it's former self amongst the nobility, whilst the peasantry and bourghers largely had arranged themselves in direct democratic, rational societies, that while often religious was the opposite of what we would call traditionalist in a meaningful sense of the word.

"Traditionalism" in its alt-right alteration is largely a movement that begins after the foundation of the nation state and thus a fairly recent wave. It arises as a natural consequence of the nation state shutting down the direct democratic assemblies and thus ushering in a new age of irrationality and primitivism as a resumption upon our tribal era.

Tradition is the rule of customs and laws that are not up for discussion. It is how the nobles ruled and how primitives lived, but in no way was it reflective of the kind of society the common man found himself in as little as 200 years ago, a legacy that modern "traditionalists" cling to as they attempt to undermine western civilization and the rational and democratic society.

ive seen it used more in the definition of "the idea that humans have invented communities with things in common, language, culture, origin, etc and that makes a nation". Not necessarily love or patriotism. Just a sense of 'we are different and have rights as different people".

Also, yeah in the USSR people got around the internal east slavic divisions by just saying "Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians are distinct people But still part of one larger slavic nation" apparently.

even if this is supposed to be ironic it's still cancer

as long as it is civic nationalism im okay with it

agree with a lot of those

cccp grill is a cute

something that has never existed ever anywhere

You mean the form of nationalism that has existed historically.

Nationalism is just as much my enemy as capitalism, feudalism, or any other stupid slavery nonsense.

nah fam you and him are confused an a-historical af

French Nationalism had a civic component since its inception.

it exists right now in ireland

no, you're confused. it doesn't exist its a euphemism for imperialism or religion or racial nationalism. there is no happy homogenous citizens who all pool their power into a strong nation-state, its always the military and literati branding the State as some revival of culture and then rallying the people into a frenzy of activity around the new reborn state which is always murderous. it is not innocuous it does not exist, it is a transition stage between dormant totalitarian imperialism and active totalitarian imperialism. This board is anti-imperialist and therefore anti-nationalist. Not compatible at all

no it doesn't and a large number of people who support it want to seize territories from the British to get it. which is imperialism.

are american indians imperialists too then?

We're talking about the ideology here, french nationalism had this "there are no race nor religion only citizens" as a principle claimed quite loudly. Leading to surreals situations were Africans kids in French colonies were taught their ancestors were the Gauls…
Of course it was a moral veil to hide the horror of the system, kinda like liberal idpol of today. But there still remain inheritance of this ideology in French citizenry laws.

Nationalism has it's contradictions, just like capitalism, but even asshatism is better than what we have now.

Gregor Straßer

Yugoslavia. No stop being retarded.

Tribalism and ethnic affinity will always exist. I don't see what the big deal is or how it is inherently genocidal.
You came from your parents, you grow up living with them, carrying their genes, preserving their traditions/spooks. It is normal to feel closer to them than to a stranger. It doesn't mean that you regard everyone else as an enemy, but there is always an in-group out-group distinction. Nationalism is the same thing on a larger scale. It is easier to work together in a collective effort with those who share the same language and spooks than an outsider. People talk about hate and xenophobia, but forced integration/diversity- being forced to work together/compete with someone who is not on the same wavelength due to some moral imperative- seems to be the source of a lot of bad blood between different groups. Something that would ordinarily be friendly competition between equals turns into Nazi masturbation fantasy because the in-group out-group distinction is always there. On the other hand, tribalism has sort of an honor system- distance is respect. Being able to have your own 'space' where you can set rules and boundaries is important to people, and cultural exchange can still occur, probably much more smoothly, if people recognize each others' right to set boundaries.

To be a rootless and socially atomized individual with no boundaries, as the internationalist vision of the 'humanity unified solely on class lines' is unhealthy.
Sorry, maybe you're emotionally invested in that vision, but I think it's fucked up. People I know from broken families, or who cut themselves off from their family for ideological reasons seem to have shallower relationships and higher time-preference

Group loyalty will exist or else everyone will be some Ayn Rand alienated genius ubermench idealized unicorn. But loyalty to this or that spook is malleable there is almost no ethnic affinity in major cities nowadays it's all a mixed liberal clusterfuck of consumer culture, the state is still a thing and there is loyalty to the state on some level or another but the state is rapidly getting cucked either way. I bet in 100 years there will be corporate citizenship like in Shadowrun

Being a retarded /polyp/ ethnonationalist is even more unhealthy. Have you seen those fucking people? It's pure negativity and beta male rage.

Ayn rand alienated genius idealized unicorns, and also soulless drudges- Nietzschean 'last men' without any spark of life or vitality to them.
Yeah that mixed liberal consumer culture clusterfuck is some horrific dystopian shit and I seriously hope we never get to that point.

What the fuck are you even talking about? It seems like you're projecting.
Of course there is a lot of negativity and beta male rage on all ends of the political spectrum. That's a symptom of a greater cultural malaise.
However, people in tight-knit kin relationships are healthier. It's a psychological anchor.

You'd have to be fucking retarded to think some artificial community based solely on ideology or class produces healthy people. I've hung around anarchist infoshops and trotskyist reading groups and they're mentally ill, dysfunctional people, and their dysfunction always ends up tearing the group apart or splintering into other groups.
You're talking negativity? Have you even witnessed leftists dogpile each other over petty ideological disagreements? It's some seriously fucked up, abusive shit coming from a sadist mentality, which is why it felt great to see these ANTIFA assholes get a beatdown.

I wanted to trigger you and I succeeded.

that has nothing to do with ethnonationalism. You can have a tight knit group of friends or familly or co-workers. People are social animals and they like hanging out with other people.

That means nothing to me. What the fuck is an artificial community? All communities are in some way "artificial" /polyps/ tend to idealize the simple village type society you can have that shit by become some kind of quakcer luddite type faggot but it's an artifical community held together through a set of beliefs which are "artificial". The German Nazi state was just as "artificial" as any other state.

have you tried making friends with any of them?

Nope. You can usually have a reasonable discussion if you talk to people without a stick up your ass.

so you don't like sadism but you enjoyed people getting a beatdown?

This has nothing to do with nationalism.

t. ango-saxon philistine

Correct. People like to form groups, and groups are partly defined by their exclusivity. Family ties and ties to the ethno-cultural background that spawned you are deeper than others. Rootless cosmopolitanism is cancer.

I was friends with them for years before realizing that they're a bunch of niggerfaggots without any integrity. Listening to all that white muh privilege white supremacy patriarchy tranny immigrant shit gets really annoying after a while. Who really gives a fuck about all this shit?
They consistently neglected the suffering of those in their immediate presence for some gay media-created clickbait cause about faggot wedding cakes or some fake police brutality narrative or dead gay sandnigger kids on a beach. All these stupid fucking feminist white girls… enough said.
They fetishize lumpen nigger culture and its ooga booga jungle music. Most of their art and culture reflects their tranny-nigger-faggot-centric ideology.
It's just not FUN. There is no fun, or beauty, or laughs, because all that stuff is toxic masculinity or fascist or some other gay buzzword.

Everyone has a little sadism in them. It's ok to direct it a threatening and hostile outgroup.
This whole Leftcom-Syndicalist-ANTIFA fag ideology- the 'american anti-authoritarian-left'
is pretty much mindless sadism and hostility towards everything, including their own.

America is a fucking rootless cosmopolitan state, where most people are mutts loyal to a set of common beleifs. American white nationalism devolves into race fetishism of autistic proportions. This also happened in Nazi Germany where Nordicism and fetishism of the Nordic race and mythology reached autisitc proportions it sounds good on paper it's just a different sort of retardation in practice at least rootless cosmopolitanism isn't hostile to other groups.
Well have you tried voicing your concerns to them? They weren't really friends if you ditched them for some retarded shit. The thing with you right wing faggots is that you want belonging to a cause, to a brand, you care more about the brand then getting some productive shit done, the same shit happenbed to the alt-right faggots, it's brand loyalty that devolves into infighting when it comes to hot button issues like right wing jews, right wing niggers, degrees of race fetishism, right wing faggots, Donald Trump, etc