I never said I was a Christian or Christian Nationalist.
You're like Zionists.
It sounds like you have a pretty low opinion of Zionists. Feel free to take up the mantle in opposing them. They're giving a metric fuckton of ammo to your ideological enemies.
I actually oppose both Zionism and Palestinianism because both are basically National Socialist movements, with a specialty in their own particular religion.
Zionism basically wore religious Judaism as a skinsuit in order to gain the allegiance of religious jews, but always intended to form a Socialist state, using jews as a political collective to justify it. Considering the number of jews involved in finance, law, trade, and diplomacy, it was a good plan. Jewish european intellectuals had appreciation for Socialism, Communism, Left-wing Nationalism, and even Fascism. Fascism's particularly appeal laid in the idea of a the state being the arbiter for an entire nation, and it seemed like the perfect fit; but Mussolini and Gentile emphasized that the state could construct the nation. It was National Socialism that offered the idea of a specific ethnic group being focused on. National Socialism is the optimal form of Zionism, the problem is Hitler's narrative about the formations of nations and all the explicit antisemitism. But, National Socialism outside of Germanism/Aryanism does actually fit. The Germanism is simply the needed metanarrative to apply Socialism to the nation. National Socialism was pushed outside of Germany without a Germanism meta-narrative and it did seem to work to some degree. Zionism isn't compatible with antisemitism, but the Zionists already have their own meta-narrative, including a Jewish diaspora and a "stab-in-the-back" victimhood narrative.
National Socialism without Germanism does tend to people who would otherwise be disinterested in Socialism. This is normally how many Left-wing Nationalist operations work, even when acting as Communists. Many of the Nationalist movements of the 20th century espoused some form of Socialism within their Nationalist framework. Even today, the SNP and Shin Fein are excellent examples of National Socialism without the Germanism metanarrative. Probably the most horrific examples are in Africa, where Pan Africanism was a cute diplomatic stunt, but most of the African nations, tribes, and ethnic groups were persuaded by Left-wing Nationalist rhetoric as "anti-Colonialism" and "anti-Imperialism", and used Socialism to advance their ethnic position against other groups and tribes. This lead to one of the bloodiest conflicts in all of human history, and in African history in particular: The 2nd Congolese War which killed over a million people.
Perhaps one thing that Israel did right in defeating Leftist subversion was to allow for the Socialists to form Kibbutzes. This allows Leftism in small and containable doses, where they mostly tend to fail, or dishearten their Useful Idiots. IIRC Bernie Sanders was basically ordered out of one because he was too useless. It's a kind of ideological defense-in-depth which allows pinkos to form their own private little CHAZ's which immediately collapse.
Anyways, what I'm saying is, Zionists are Nazis. Fuck 'em.
Too bad all that space luxury communism doesn't work. Turns out someone's bitch-ass needs to haul concrete in the communist utopia.
Civic Nationalist. I'm an American. The American nation, what makes it exceptional, and why it's an experiment, is the basis on a creed. A Revolutionary Liberal Lockean ordering of the state, and the principles of which are a reflection of a liberty focused society. The American Nation is based on those values. So long as those fundamental values are maintained, the American exists.
In theory, Ethno-Nationalism could work (in other countries), like Ireland, Hungary, Finland, Portugal, Ethiopia. However, I tend to find that the Ethno-Nationalists, particularly of any modern stripe, are just Leftist Nationalists. Even when they do argue for Nationalism (like Shin Fein) they end up being Socialist anyway, because it was a skinsuit.
It isn't impossible for some kind of Ethno-Nationalism to work outside of Socialism, but it would require a very different kind of political structure. Something like the Swiss Confederation, or the Sikh Empire. Religion could work as part of that, even monarchy, but not an absolute monarchy or religion. It would have to be a kind of stratified series of lesser monarchs, or religious principalities. It's not a surprise that both states preserved themselves with mass armamentation of the general public, and expansive military training.
The thing is, when you do that, your Ethno-Nationalism would recede into Religious Nationalism, or it would be stratified into a kind of Localized Ethno-Nationalism (like the German Confederation). Ethno-Nationalism could work, but only in geographically similar and contiguous areas where the environment didn't create separate cultures, and then separate ethnic groups. Even a country as large as France couldn't maintain Ethno-Nationalism. A country like Portugal, sure, but it's not ethnically homogeneous. When do the portuguese begin and the spanish end? The populations are already intermixed. Even the portuguese would need some kind of Civic Nationalism to unify Portugal.
On the other hand, "white" as an ethnicity is a fucking joke. You'll never have a successful "White" Ethno-Nationalist country. White's not an ethnicity. It doesn't even share a language. It's a race. It's more abstract than a religion, and less value consistent.
In a lot of cases, you actually still create a Civic Nationalism when you start trying to combine multiple ethnic groups into a "new" ethnic group. The "British" are not an ethnic group, but an imperial one. A civic nation created by political fiat. Now, it's possible to argue that the British are a kind of Supra-Ethnicity. It's not the first time that's happened even on the British Isles. The "English" are a supra-ethnicity of many smaller ethnic groups that inhabited the island. But they became one by having a unified culture, language, history, and geographic continuity. The English became a nation, from civic to ethnic. It took a few hundred years, but it did happen. Mercians are now more of an ethnic sub group, rather than a properly separate ethnicity.
Civic Nationalist. I'm an American. The American nation, what makes it exceptional, and why it's an experiment, is the basis on a creed. A Revolutionary Liberal Lockean ordering of the state, and the principles of which are a reflection of a liberty focused society. The American Nation is based on those values. So long as those fundamental values are maintained, the American exists.
Are you unfamiliar with America's pre-1965 immigration laws?
I never said I was a Christian or Christian Nationalist.
It sounds like you have a pretty low opinion of Zionists. Feel free to take up the mantle in opposing them. They're giving a metric fuckton of ammo to your ideological enemies.
I have no problem opposing Zionism.
I actually oppose both Zionism and Palestinianism because both are basically National Socialist movements, with a specialty in their own particular religion.
Zionism basically wore religious Judaism as a skinsuit in order to gain the allegiance of religious jews, but always intended to form a Socialist state, using jews as a political collective to justify it. Considering the number of jews involved in finance, law, trade, and diplomacy, it was a good plan. Jewish european intellectuals had appreciation for Socialism, Communism, Left-wing Nationalism, and even Fascism. Fascism's particularly appeal laid in the idea of a the state being the arbiter for an entire nation, and it seemed like the perfect fit; but Mussolini and Gentile emphasized that the state could construct the nation. It was National Socialism that offered the idea of a specific ethnic group being focused on. National Socialism is the optimal form of Zionism, the problem is Hitler's narrative about the formations of nations and all the explicit antisemitism. But, National Socialism outside of Germanism/Aryanism does actually fit. The Germanism is simply the needed metanarrative to apply Socialism to the nation. National Socialism was pushed outside of Germany without a Germanism meta-narrative and it did seem to work to some degree. Zionism isn't compatible with antisemitism, but the Zionists already have their own meta-narrative, including a Jewish diaspora and a "stab-in-the-back" victimhood narrative.
National Socialism without Germanism does tend to people who would otherwise be disinterested in Socialism. This is normally how many Left-wing Nationalist operations work, even when acting as Communists. Many of the Nationalist movements of the 20th century espoused some form of Socialism within their Nationalist framework. Even today, the SNP and Shin Fein are excellent examples of National Socialism without the Germanism metanarrative. Probably the most horrific examples are in Africa, where Pan Africanism was a cute diplomatic stunt, but most of the African nations, tribes, and ethnic groups were persuaded by Left-wing Nationalist rhetoric as "anti-Colonialism" and "anti-Imperialism", and used Socialism to advance their ethnic position against other groups and tribes. This lead to one of the bloodiest conflicts in all of human history, and in African history in particular: The 2nd Congolese War which killed over a million people.
Perhaps one thing that Israel did right in defeating Leftist subversion was to allow for the Socialists to form Kibbutzes. This allows Leftism in small and containable doses, where they mostly tend to fail, or dishearten their Useful Idiots. IIRC Bernie Sanders was basically ordered out of one because he was too useless. It's a kind of ideological defense-in-depth which allows pinkos to form their own private little CHAZ's which immediately collapse.
Anyways, what I'm saying is, Zionists are Nazis. Fuck 'em.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that story about Sanders being so lazy even Communists threw him out of the commune. LMAO
I can't remember if you identified yourself as any sort of nationalist or not.
Too bad all that space luxury communism doesn't work. Turns out someone's bitch-ass needs to haul concrete in the communist utopia.
Civic Nationalist. I'm an American. The American nation, what makes it exceptional, and why it's an experiment, is the basis on a creed. A Revolutionary Liberal Lockean ordering of the state, and the principles of which are a reflection of a liberty focused society. The American Nation is based on those values. So long as those fundamental values are maintained, the American exists.
In theory, Ethno-Nationalism could work (in other countries), like Ireland, Hungary, Finland, Portugal, Ethiopia. However, I tend to find that the Ethno-Nationalists, particularly of any modern stripe, are just Leftist Nationalists. Even when they do argue for Nationalism (like Shin Fein) they end up being Socialist anyway, because it was a skinsuit.
It isn't impossible for some kind of Ethno-Nationalism to work outside of Socialism, but it would require a very different kind of political structure. Something like the Swiss Confederation, or the Sikh Empire. Religion could work as part of that, even monarchy, but not an absolute monarchy or religion. It would have to be a kind of stratified series of lesser monarchs, or religious principalities. It's not a surprise that both states preserved themselves with mass armamentation of the general public, and expansive military training.
The thing is, when you do that, your Ethno-Nationalism would recede into Religious Nationalism, or it would be stratified into a kind of Localized Ethno-Nationalism (like the German Confederation). Ethno-Nationalism could work, but only in geographically similar and contiguous areas where the environment didn't create separate cultures, and then separate ethnic groups. Even a country as large as France couldn't maintain Ethno-Nationalism. A country like Portugal, sure, but it's not ethnically homogeneous. When do the portuguese begin and the spanish end? The populations are already intermixed. Even the portuguese would need some kind of Civic Nationalism to unify Portugal.
On the other hand, "white" as an ethnicity is a fucking joke. You'll never have a successful "White" Ethno-Nationalist country. White's not an ethnicity. It doesn't even share a language. It's a race. It's more abstract than a religion, and less value consistent.
In a lot of cases, you actually still create a Civic Nationalism when you start trying to combine multiple ethnic groups into a "new" ethnic group. The "British" are not an ethnic group, but an imperial one. A civic nation created by political fiat. Now, it's possible to argue that the British are a kind of Supra-Ethnicity. It's not the first time that's happened even on the British Isles. The "English" are a supra-ethnicity of many smaller ethnic groups that inhabited the island. But they became one by having a unified culture, language, history, and geographic continuity. The English became a nation, from civic to ethnic. It took a few hundred years, but it did happen. Mercians are now more of an ethnic sub group, rather than a properly separate ethnicity.
Are you unfamiliar with America's pre-1965 immigration laws?