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'm well aware of it, but also remember that White isn't an ethnicity.
The Americans themselves at the time of the Revolution saw themselves as entirely different states, and entirely different peoples.
"White" is still a broad abstract category. The country is founded not on Racialism, but Liberalism. The question that besieged the Founding Fathers was "could anyone but the English Protestants be Liberal". It turns out yes. And thank god, since there were tens of thousands of abandoned Germans that suddenly became American. Even Catholics can be Liberal.
It turns out that although the Universal Man is a flawed concept, people who embrace American values, can become American, because those values are what make us American.
I'm well aware of it, but also remember that White isn't an ethnicity.
I'm aware. There was even discrimination between groups of whites, which communist turd Noel Ignatiev used to create a myth that the Irish were not considered white.
That's beside the point, though. There was clearly a desire to maintain a white majority. When you speak of America's values, do you include that one?
Because the question wasn't race, it was liberalism.
The very reason the Americans became American is because they universalized English rights.
The English literally told the American Colonists that they had no rights because they lived over there. The only place where rights could exist was in England and England alone, only for English. Welsh were not people. Scotts were not people. The Irish were not people. Only the English could have Liberalism. Only the English could have freedom. Only the English could have a culture and society that would be responsible enough to be free. All other peoples and places on the Earth needed slavery and tyranny in order to civilize them, because the English saw themselves as the force of right-ordering the world.
At least, a shit load of them in parliament thought (and still think) that way. Though nowadays they don't use "English".
It was Benjamin Franklin who started to notice the danger that the Americans actually faced from the British Empire at the hands of English supremacism. He traveled to Scotland and saw the brutality, mass murder, and lawlessness of the English ethnic cleansing of the highland. He went to Ireland, and realized that the Coercive Acts passed against the colonies were very similar to what the English had done to the Irish. They literally established a lorded aristocracy over the Irish, ruled them under 2 tier legal system, denied them all available rights and remedies and attempted to slowly ethnicly cleanse the Irish as they had done to the Highlanders.
One of the reasons Franklin pushed for independence and war, is because he genuinely believed there would be a genocide of the colonials, who were explicitly considered as non-English as the Irish, and I don't think he was wrong.
So, philosophically, coming from a people who were abandoning the very concept of their legal and moral framework: "ancient English liberties", they had to assert universal rights.
It was apparent, though, that total universalism would never work, particularly with peoples who had no history of individualism and freedom. Could the Catholics even be trusted to be Liberal. Could the French? Could the Germans? Could the natives?
Christianity seemed to be the answer. Some kind of Christian society could allow people to embrace Liberalism. And Natives could be converted. The French could be converted. The Germans (of the time) didn't seem like they would even be that bad.
The immigration question (which was already bizarre since they didn't even know what a citizen was or would look like), is based on that philosophy. Who could embrace freedom? Europeans, maybe? But not just people who live in Europe. "White" seems like a good category for that grouping of people.
So, yeah. Still Liberalism, but it was cautious because no one was even sure it would work. Turns out, many people can actually be freedom loving individualists if they are prepared to at least accept a Christian moral framework.
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?
I'm well aware of it, but also remember that White isn't an ethnicity.
The Americans themselves at the time of the Revolution saw themselves as entirely different states, and entirely different peoples.
"White" is still a broad abstract category. The country is founded not on Racialism, but Liberalism. The question that besieged the Founding Fathers was "could anyone but the English Protestants be Liberal". It turns out yes. And thank god, since there were tens of thousands of abandoned Germans that suddenly became American. Even Catholics can be Liberal.
It turns out that although the Universal Man is a flawed concept, people who embrace American values, can become American, because those values are what make us American.
I'm aware. There was even discrimination between groups of whites, which communist turd Noel Ignatiev used to create a myth that the Irish were not considered white.
That's beside the point, though. There was clearly a desire to maintain a white majority. When you speak of America's values, do you include that one?
Because the question wasn't race, it was liberalism.
The very reason the Americans became American is because they universalized English rights.
The English literally told the American Colonists that they had no rights because they lived over there. The only place where rights could exist was in England and England alone, only for English. Welsh were not people. Scotts were not people. The Irish were not people. Only the English could have Liberalism. Only the English could have freedom. Only the English could have a culture and society that would be responsible enough to be free. All other peoples and places on the Earth needed slavery and tyranny in order to civilize them, because the English saw themselves as the force of right-ordering the world.
At least, a shit load of them in parliament thought (and still think) that way. Though nowadays they don't use "English".
It was Benjamin Franklin who started to notice the danger that the Americans actually faced from the British Empire at the hands of English supremacism. He traveled to Scotland and saw the brutality, mass murder, and lawlessness of the English ethnic cleansing of the highland. He went to Ireland, and realized that the Coercive Acts passed against the colonies were very similar to what the English had done to the Irish. They literally established a lorded aristocracy over the Irish, ruled them under 2 tier legal system, denied them all available rights and remedies and attempted to slowly ethnicly cleanse the Irish as they had done to the Highlanders.
One of the reasons Franklin pushed for independence and war, is because he genuinely believed there would be a genocide of the colonials, who were explicitly considered as non-English as the Irish, and I don't think he was wrong.
So, philosophically, coming from a people who were abandoning the very concept of their legal and moral framework: "ancient English liberties", they had to assert universal rights.
It was apparent, though, that total universalism would never work, particularly with peoples who had no history of individualism and freedom. Could the Catholics even be trusted to be Liberal. Could the French? Could the Germans? Could the natives?
Christianity seemed to be the answer. Some kind of Christian society could allow people to embrace Liberalism. And Natives could be converted. The French could be converted. The Germans (of the time) didn't seem like they would even be that bad.
The immigration question (which was already bizarre since they didn't even know what a citizen was or would look like), is based on that philosophy. Who could embrace freedom? Europeans, maybe? But not just people who live in Europe. "White" seems like a good category for that grouping of people.
So, yeah. Still Liberalism, but it was cautious because no one was even sure it would work. Turns out, many people can actually be freedom loving individualists if they are prepared to at least accept a Christian moral framework.
Your claim, so what’s the proof?