Anti-Racist Nationalists

infoterror

Member
Apr 17, 2005
1,191
2
38
Anti-Racist Nationalists

The average person cannot distinguish between patriotism, nationalism and racism, and it is a mistake to assume they are degrees of the same order. Patriotism and racism are parts of the current political system, where nationalism is an order that has come both before and will come after the current order. It is a worldview and type of civilization that is irreconciliably opposed to the type of society we call "modern," and is equally opposed to both patriotism and racism.

Nationalism is understanding of each society as an organic entity. It is neither individualist nor collectivist, but is founded upon the belief that in the mathematics of the universe there are incentives to live according to a certain design, and that we as individuals fulfill this design, which includes but is not limited to the collective or the individual. The individual both serves this design and is served by it, for it provides a more stable and nourishing society than modernity can.

Malcolm X, Black NationalistModern civilizations are organized and distinguished from one another by political concerns, which are abstract rules applied uniformly to individuals who are presumed to be of equivalent tastes, needs and inclinations; they are utilitarian by their nature, which is propelled by the needs of industry to have equal workers to continue the flow of profits. Their goal is not empowerment of the citizen, but the use of empowerment to drive the citizen into traps of his or her own making, preventing an interruption in the flow of memoryless, cultureless labor who can be molded into the patterns of thought needed to drive society's machines.

While these societies speak of "freedom," "equality" and "peace," what they generally intend is to release the citizen from all obligations except earning income, at which point the competitive nature of earning income drives citizens toward increasing allegiance to the system that manipulates them. Modern societies focus on the external factors of human existence, such as that we are all individuals, and by treating us alike hope to instill in us the same motivation; this makes us easy to manipulate and predict. Such societies by recognizing the external factors of our lives in equality deny the internal and unequal factors, and thus give us nothing for which to strive to prove our individual worth except money. They produce people of low self-confidence as a result, and these people in turn detest anyone who hopes to rise above the artificially-conditioned "equality" of servitude.

Nationalist societies are based on an eternal order which will benefit the entirety of any civilization, including the collective, its component individuals, and the surrounding environment. They do this by targetting the internal, or what makes us truly individuals, and by giving to each a place in which he or she can serve a larger order. Nationalist societies are thus both anti-individualistic, and affirming of the greater worth of the individual; there is no single competition for greatness, as the battle for wealth provides, but a sense of having a place in a cosmic order mirrored in a naturalistic human society.

To this end, in nationalist societies, we are each seen as having a place defined by heredity, with those who prove aptitude for another task being shifted to it more permanently over the course of generations. This means that the son of a baker may never grow rich as a king, but that he will never be impoverished, either, barring complete incompetence or large criminal activity. We recognize that people cannot be controlled externally, and that only our internal inclinations to be either constructive or destructive determine the nature of our behavior. The son of a baker who is uncommonly able will rise above the levels of his fathers, but only after many generations will be ready for kingship; this is the way of nature, which took many years to breed humans from chimpanzees and even then has provided us with people of constructive and destructive inclinations in every group.

Our goal is to nurture those who are rising in quality, preserve those who are consistent across generations, and slowly remove those who have criminal or parasitic intent, because as modern society teaches us, even giving them degrees and making them rich leaders does not remove the corruption in their souls. This conflicts with both modern society and racist ideology in that we believe each population must set its own standards, and thus to have outside-bred people in that population will subject them unjustly to its rules. For this reason, we believe not only in racial separation but in separation of each race into its component ethnicities, with greater precision as possible when approaching the local level. This is a contrast to racism, which believes one race is absolutely superior to all others, and patriotism, which believes all people joined by political ideas are of one society.

Nationalists seek a civilization unified by a single leader, but ruled entirely at the local level (city/town/parish) with those localities joined loosely into regional kingdoms. The leader of a nation does not command the people directly, but passes demands on to the kings, who subdivide them among localities; this way, if any leader on any level is corrupt, it becomes more quickly visible and the people are able to remove that leader without undue disruption to the political process. At the local level, no one is forced to deal with another, but they are allowed to form allegiances naturally, and local leaders can be selected by any means desired. Nationalism is the ultimate non-bureaucratic, non-standardized, non-utilitarian form of governance.

Thomas Jefferson, American Nativist NationalistAlthough we believe in the separation of ethnic groups, we do not do this from a belief that other groups are "superior" or "inferior," but from one that each population must govern itself in order to work organically. After all, culture arises when people of a similar heritage come together, and as culture determines those who rise or descend according to local standards, it breeds people who find harmony in its ideals with their own. We are thus opposed to racism because it not only corrupts a sensible concept, but turns a logical decision into a paranoiac and violent emotional one, ensuring future suffering for people of all races. As such, it is our belief that nationalism is simultaneously opposed to both racism and patriotism, which would include all races who swear allegiance to an abstract and unrealistic common political principle.

Modern society has existed for a few centuries, and during this time has destroyed more of the ancient cultures of all races than any war ever could. It has sponsored pollution, starved millions, enslaved others in boring and endless wage-obedience, caused overpopulation, made species extinct, and given wealth and power to the most corrupt, depraved and parasitic among us. It is breeding more people of that nature. It will never stop its destructive ways as like all truly destructive things, it wears a positive outlook but inwardly cares nothing for the destruction it causes or the creation it fails to achieve; its only goal is power and wealth. Nationalism is the only force today that opposes modernity.

Nationalist societies are more respectful of nature, and would reverse the wholesale pollution and desecration caused by the last five hundred years. Nationalist civilizations respect all cultures and recognize that there can be no equality between them, as each is important for its own unique adaptation to its own part of the world; culture is to be enjoyed and defended for its own sake, not for its utility as a means to some political or economic end. Nationalist cultures give greater respect to the individuals and protect the working citizen from undue economic competition, while giving to that normal person a guaranteed living and stable social existence. Nationalism opposes the concept that one world government, media and economy can define one type of ideal person, whether blonde-haired and blue-eyed or dark-haired and dark-skinned, because in each part of the world there is a different culture with different values. Nationalists do not believe in a single right way of living, and there is no center to the nationalist universe, only endless potential for diversity.

It is our belief that nationalism is entirely misunderstood, and that often, nationalists revert to racism in a defensive posture; further, enemies of nationalism like to accuse it of racism. Our goal is to achieve a nationalist world order without the petty vengefulness and emotional overdrive caused by racism and patriotism, and we ask you to consider the possibility of such a world order and how you might work to achieve it.

Anti-Racist Nationalists
 
That was a very good post Inforterror.

Nationalists may appear to be racist in having the opinion that other races should be repatriated from and not allowed to live in our own nation. It is assumed that we hate the other races, when really it is just that we believe separation is the best for all. These feelings are very strong and mixed with annoyance at the present situation - easily confused with hatred and therefore confused with some sort of nasty supremacy.

The real race haters are those who deny race and who enforce multiculturalism on a people who don't want it and never would have wanted it. I believe it is genocide to make an indiginous population become threatened with extinction in this way.

As far as how a nation should be ruled. To avoid the problem of power corrupting, the solution seems clear. An individual could be elected. He or she will have people who they trust as advisors, and may or may not be involved in a political party. This person must live in the most impoverished and rundown area of the country, (with security measures) and on a minimal wage. This eliminates the greedy and corrupt from wanting the job. The leader will have executive power in return for living in such conditions. They will want to improve the area and improve the nation from experiencing its problems at first hand. Once they have upgraded the place they are living in, the leader must move again to wherever the living conditions in the country are worst again.
 
Norsemaiden said:
The real race haters are those who deny race and who enforce multiculturalism on a people who don't want it and never would have wanted it. I believe it is genocide to make an indiginous population become threatened with extinction in this way.

An absolutely ridiculous and paradoxical proposition.

Those who deny race are those who hate other races. They believe only ONE race of their own geographically-based people should exist, and that all others are of lower stock than their own. Thus exists racism.

From a purely logical perspective, aforementioned racism is known as a polar opposite to multiculturalism which embraces exactly what racism rejects.

Far right wingers suggest the superiority of an Aryan race is a return to a true race, where in reality, this couldnt be further from the truth: the first true humans were dark skinned, non-Aryan and from Africa.

As the continents shifted throughout the course of ancient history, so too did populations of humans. As surely as did the land masses divide, the humans did as well, eventually physically effected by their climates and temperatures so that their attributes evolved into different skin colours, limb lengths and heights of their bodies, to name a few.

Multiculturalism is simply a return to one species in ancient times long past, unification of all races into one species: human. It is unavoidable and resides naturally inside the law of human nature on a historical and biological level.

Nationalism is simply a big load of shit and a by-product of paranoid fear, a quest for phantom glory of which the crown is rejection of all which differs to the self.

Fuck nationalism. There is only one indiginous race on this planet - human being.
 
That way lies a state of perpetual warfare. Nationalists advocate peace. Your post is full of hatred and intolerance. Do you also say "fuck Kalistan"? What does being a Sikh mean to you anyway?
 
The Hubster said:
Nationalism is simply a big load of shit and a by-product of paranoid fear, a quest for phantom glory of which the crown is rejection of all which differs to the self.

nationalism can be quite threatening in that it does make us question our sense of self in the world. but really, the average human's sense of self is quite superficial when compared to say...a cat. a cat just lives, provides for its kittens, eats, poops...is happy simply by living. it doesn't need to have a "place" in this world or make a name for itself. granted, a cat can't even comprehend the idea of rising to power. So, you can't really give the cat credit.

but, i can see how the idea of nationalism is aiming toward's more of cat's sense of self, or ego. but, obviously on a much larger and organized level. unfortunately, i think that making it work is quite a long shot. it would require the swallowing of a lot of pride...or a massive event such as nuclear war, an asteroid, or a new ice age, where the only option to avoid extinction would be to cooperate in such a manner...to not take the wonderful and simple wonder of existence for granted...to embrace that as a sense of self.

i find myself guilty of being a tool of modern society. i aspire to selfish dreams...but as a grow up, and a lot of things don't work out the way i planned...sometimes i just sit and ponder about how great it is that i am having an experience, and can share it with others. its much more rewarding than getting caught up in the quest to prove myself worthy.
 
Men have a much stronger territorial instinct than women do. So because I'm female and because I have never settled anywhere during my life or have a place that I can feel is my ancestral territory or my homeland, I have to search deeply in my sense of logic and understanding of human psychology to comprehend the deep loyalties and meaningfulness of a homeland territory to a male whose ancestors have lived and died in that same place he calls his home. I totally emphasize with these strong feelings and I feel that it is terribly romantic, passionate and vital to such a person's whole existence. It would be hard for someone brought up in a city to feel like that, as well as for someone who had no proper homeland like a Jew (who has only Israel to evoke such feelings) or a Sikh (who has to think of Kalistan). It is a pity for anyone to not have that bond. It is like being born in a test tube experiment in an artifical womb and never having parents. It is a truly pitiful thing. But how can anyone in that position really understand how important someone's homeland and heritage is to them, and how with all their heart they wish to preserve that and pass it on to their own kids?

To say such feelings are "full of shit" is just total malicious ignorance. We should rather envy the person who has this heritage and want to create a sense of belonging like that for ourselves. It is not something to fear and despise, but something to admire.
 
To be honest I have a problem with what you say, depsite having never had the opportunity to study Psychology. Yes, I guess a lot of people are proud of their 'homeland,' my uncle is one of these people. But I personally do not understand why. I think, at least with regard to my uncle, that it is inexperience of other countries that makes him so patriotic, and thus (in his case) racist. Everything about England is better than any country, their food, their government, their sewerage, everything. With him, it's like shit isn't even shit if it isn't English or British shit. He lived in Canada for a few weeks about 20/30 years ago. It was supposed to be a work contract for 6 months, but he left after a few weeks because their health and safety regulations weren't up to British standards! But now that he has actually started traveling more than just this once, he is a lot more liberal (not sure if thats the word i'm looking for) about it.

We do not live in huts anymore, and most people do not even live in the country. Because urban life is so alike in many countries, and because we do not fight battles for our homeland, this idea of it being our 'homeland' for only us is severely dimnished.

I do not feel many ties for this country, and I do not feel displaced nor detached nor any other negative feeling because of it. The reverse is actually incredibly true, I am free, not lost. Granted, I'm not a man, but I still don't think that a man would feel much different. People having a good basis of friends and 'family' (be it real family or long time friends that basically are family) is much more important than belonging to one country. Indeed, with the above basis, men and women alike often feel that they belong to a country which is not were they should technically come from.

Or so I think
 
Norsemaiden said:
Nationalists advocate peace. Your post is full of hatred and intolerance. Do you also say "fuck Kalistan"? What does being a Sikh mean to you anyway? ... It is a pity for anyone to not have that bond. It is like being born in a test tube experiment in an artifical womb and never having parents. It is a truly pitiful thing. But how can anyone in that position really understand how important someone's homeland and heritage is to them, and how with all their heart they wish to preserve that and pass it on to their own kids? ... To say such feelings are "full of shit" is just total malicious ignorance. We should rather envy the person who has this heritage and want to create a sense of belonging like that for ourselves. It is not something to fear and despise, but something to admire.

Throughout my life, I've seen 99% of people in a desperate struggle to belong to something (racially). This philosophy has been a massive factor on my own life, it continues to be.

I rejected religion, in this case, Sikhism, in my teens, following years of violence in English schools, and then onwards into Australian schools when I moved over to Sydney. But this violence was not the only reason for the rejection.

From a young age, a philosophy of an organised religion in which one must worship male figures, dress a certain way, one in which women and men are not seen as equal, this was something I had felt restricted by. Even as a child, I sensed some kind of entrapment in it, and my quest was to be free and to be able to breathe easily in a world of tolerance, open mindedness and sexual equality.

I am not ashamed of my Sikh heritage, but the religious side of it holds no value to me, it does not fit into my personal morals. I seek paths of more nature based spiritualism, and also a path which accepts all as equal, regardless of eye colour, skin colour, head covering or anything else.

Unlike the majority of the herd, I do not have a wish to "label" myself. I do not feel that I need to belong to a group, that I need to be part of a cluster, that I need conformity, racial absolution or purity to feel safe.

I oppose the nationalist ideology of "purity". Nationalism advocates "peace" (I use the world lightly and caustically in this context) through cleansing and racial elitism, and in todays world, that means war and death.

Khalistan is the imaginary city of the Sikhs, it does not yet exist (who knows if it ever will?). The fight in India between my people and the Hindus is something I do not condone, but I also do not condone establishment of a city simply for the sake of racial purity. East or West, Sikh, Muslim, Christian or Judaist, I do not support racial purity.

Many Sikhs now reside in other countries (England, Ausralia, New Zealand, America, Canada, Africa to name a few) and their beliefs have become less extremist than that of the India-based people. These Sikhs abroad live their lives in peace, but as described above, I do not support the religion. It has points of positivity and spirituality, but in the end segregates like many other religions do.

Being a Sikh to me means I am of North Indian heritage geographically, and that is it. My Sikhism shows in my features and in ways my spirituality. I have a homeland, and that is the Earth I live in regardless of where I am geographically.

It is more important to identify with trying to be a good person, who will try to help others, a person who will be open minded and accept knowledges from all cultures and races, and to accept we are all ultimately the same. There is only one Earth, segregation aids in pulling it apart in a destructive manner instead of promoting peace.

It is malicious ignorance to you because you do not support multiracial unity. You support racial cleansing and segregation, as do many of the people on this board, as do many people in the Western world, as does the herd, the majority: it's no better than being sexist, anti-gay, or misogynist (which makes your support of nationalism even more alarming because you are a woman, and judging from your past posts, you do have a feminist influence of some kind). You place a value on how important someone's homeland and heritage is to them because that is what society has taught you.

I have no fear at all, that is why I choose to not draw a line with racial diversity and the like. It is not "pitiful" to accept new ideas with open arms as it is to oppose them by crossing your arms with clenched fists, this, as you can now logically read, does not advocate hatred and intolerance, it opposes it outright.
 
The Hubster said:
Those who deny race are those who hate other races. They believe only ONE race of their own geographically-based people should exist, and that all others are of lower stock than their own. Thus exists racism.

What about those who believe "only ONE race of their geographically-based people should exist" in that geographical area?

By your definition, that's not racism (scope argument - see above).
 
JoeVice said:
nationalism can be quite threatening in that it does make us question our sense of self in the world. but really, the average human's sense of self is quite superficial when compared to say...a cat. a cat just lives, provides for its kittens, eats, poops...is happy simply by living. it doesn't need to have a "place" in this world or make a name for itself. granted, a cat can't even comprehend the idea of rising to power. So, you can't really give the cat credit.

but, i can see how the idea of nationalism is aiming toward's more of cat's sense of self, or ego.

Very important point. Three basic outlooks: individualism, collectivism, or traditionalism (nationalism induces the latter).

"The world may be explained in sociological terms. David Riesman describes three basic social personalities in The Lonely Crowd. 'Other-directed' people pattern their behavior on what their peers expect of them. Suburban America's men in gray-flannel suits are other-directed. 'Inner-directed' people are guided by what they have been trained to expect of themselves. [General Douglas] MacArthur was inner-directed. The third type, the 'tradition-directed,' has not been seen in the West since the Middle Ages. Tradition-directed people hardly think of themselves as individuals; their conduct is determined by folk rituals handed down from the past." - American Caesar, by William Manchester, p 537
 
infoterror said:
What about those who believe "only ONE race of their geographically-based people should exist" in that geographical area?

By your definition, that's not racism (scope argument - see above).

Thanks for pointing that out. Its something I didnt cover, and thus I shall.

While I reject religion in its more modern known state of form (but not spiritual sects such as Buddhism, Wicca or Asatru), I do understand that it's not entirely negative for a religious state to exist for the people who practice that religion, from a racial point of view:

In some cases, religion knows no colour of skin, nor hair, nor eyes. An example is the many races who are Christian, Muslim, and of course Sikh (I have seen many mixed race couples in my temples as a youngster who have converted to Sikhism and are at peace with their chosen belief). While I see organised religion a less positive thing in general, I won't allow myself to ignore that seeing these mixed race relationships in this fashion is positive - I think it's great, it suggests and supports evolution.

Thus, we see many races flock to Mecca or the Golden Temple who aren't of Arabic (Mecca) or Sikh (Golden Temple) nationality. However, this is accepted because the race is overlooked as they have chosen the faith over race. It is honoured and respected.

While I don't consider this existence of religious states racial, I do still consider this, despite my positive depiction above, to be a form of segregation. It's a blurred line though - some religions respect others and acknowledge their existence as we know.

Nevertheless, a unity of race in just about any form to me (note, I am not referring to unity of the human species, which is what I strongly support), whether it's "only ONE race of geographically-based people existing" in general, or "only ONE race of their geographically-based existing in one geographical location", I still see it as negative overall, as it condones and supports racial absolution, nationalism and rejects mixing and acceptance of difference as a source of new knowledge.

Diversify, accept, learn and evolve. These to me are the keys to the future of humanity as an intelligent species. Nationalism is the polar opposite and promotes stagnation and decay via segregative purity.
 
The Hubster said:
Nevertheless, a unity of race in just about any form to me (note, I am not referring to unity of the human species, which is what I strongly support), whether it's "only ONE race of geographically-based people existing" in general, or "only ONE race of their geographically-based existing in one geographical location", I still see it as negative overall, as it condones and supports racial absolution, nationalism and rejects mixing and acceptance of difference as a source of new knowledge.

I don't agree. There is no diversity if you don't preserve unique tribes. There is no racial absolution unless each race has a space. What is the value of mixing, besides to destroy diversity? No sources of new knowledge are lost, as information is still exchanged, but what is preserved is the very diversity you're describing.

Think about it: if we move all races into every country, soon every country will have the same grey people, same stores and foods and habits, same television, etc. One world order = one world culture = one world tedious end.
 
Yes, we will be one world slaves. And I fear this is being done to us in a controlled manner by another people with very strong loyalties to their own kind, who are supremacist and who intend to take advantage of their own cohesive existence to exploit the rootless, raceless, even family-less slaves that everyone else will become. Also, this mixing will cause nations to implode, and certain people will make a lot of money supplying arms for the brutal warfare that inevitably is the consequence of balkanisation.

Nationalistic feelings are commonly exploited by rulers to get their nation to fight another nation. But with the right ruler this would not be inevitable, unlike the terrifying prospect of the long term conflict that balkanisation brings.
 
Your problem with nationalism, The Hubster, seems to be that you think a nationalist has to believe other cultures were inferior.
But i think one can be proud of one's cultural heritage without hating other cultures.
And even if you want to keep people from different nationalities and cultures seperate from each other it does not mean you want them to hate each other.
 
infoterror said:
I don't agree. There is no diversity if you don't preserve unique tribes. There is no racial absolution unless each race has a space. What is the value of mixing, besides to destroy diversity? No sources of new knowledge are lost, as information is still exchanged, but what is preserved is the very diversity you're describing.

Think about it: if we move all races into every country, soon every country will have the same grey people, same stores and foods and habits, same television, etc. One world order = one world culture = one world tedious end.

This is probably one of the best rationalizations I've read regarding the danger of multiculturalism.
 
infoterror said:
I don't agree. There is no diversity if you don't preserve unique tribes. There is no racial absolution unless each race has a space. What is the value of mixing, besides to destroy diversity? No sources of new knowledge are lost, as information is still exchanged, but what is preserved is the very diversity you're describing.

Think about it: if we move all races into every country, soon every country will have the same grey people, same stores and foods and habits, same television, etc. One world order = one world culture = one world tedious end.

i don't see how everyone eating the same foods, watching the same television, and abiding under the same government equals one world tedious end. the world will end. but, i don't see how it could be because of a lack of diversity.

diversity only exists because of different races. so, what is the point of diversity besides to share and enjoy different ways of doing things? what is more important.... what is done, or the act of doing it?
 
Having millions of people from other cultures forced on you is evil and causes divisions in society, wages to be forced down, freedom of speech to be curtailed, increase in crime, increase in corruption, falling educational standards, falling standards in every field, and a lack of willingness to care any more about, or defend one's now "so called" nation (which is really just a geographical area - a factory for international capitalists). That applies to most European countries now.
 
Norsemaiden said:
Having millions of people from other cultures forced on you is evil and causes divisions in society, wages to be forced down, freedom of speech to be curtailed, increase in crime, increase in corruption, falling educational standards, falling standards in every field, and a lack of willingness to care any more about, or defend one's now "so called" nation (which is really just a geographical area - a factory for international capitalists). That applies to most European countries now.

My main problem with it is that it obliterates native cultures. If every country on earth becomes multicultural, they'll all become the same grey culture. You don't teach culture. It's in the blood and in family experience. That does not get passed on when ethnic and cultural lines are destroyed.

It takes until adulthood to see this however...
 
Where does this stance come into play with travel? Would it be considered okay to spend long periods of times in other countries? And would people be allowed to voluntarily move to another country with a different culture?
 
Neith said:
Where does this stance come into play with travel? Would it be considered okay to spend long periods of times in other countries? And would people be allowed to voluntarily move to another country with a different culture?

I think travelling is not the same as multiculturalism:
Somebody who travels might become inspired by smaller things he sees in the cultures that he visits - still he usually won't change over to the other culture or mix his culture with the visited ones in an infavoravle way.
And even if he does it he will do it because he is actually convinced of that other culture or the mixing product. This would be learning from other cultures.

I don't even think having different cultures in one state has to be bad, if each keeps its own ways and they try not to interfer with each other too much.
But if you force them to get along and to be 'integrated' (ie give up most of their culture and assume most of the culture which the government, media and trends like) you will get the mentioned grey mixed culture.