Reblogged from http://stalwartau.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/nationalism-what-it-is-and-why-it-is.html?m=1

It is important to clearly determine what a nation is before exploring nationalism as a concept. A nation is a society of people who share common bonds with one-another. These bonds stem from common heritage in the form of language, culture & religion, societal values, systems of law and, arguably most importantly of all, bloodlines. Indeed, race & ethnicity is the most fundamental component of national identity because it is the only component of national identity which cannot be diluted, transformed or denied. While a man may change his religion, acculturate himself into a new sort of behaviour and adopt different ideas and values, what remains is his racial identity – the unbreakable bond which makes him a part of a folk, whether great or small. Every human on Earth is a part of a people with whom they share this common bond, regardless of whether or not they recognise it as truth. In all, a nation is a people who share with each other an identity which groups them together as a collective.

Nationalism (the suffix ‘–ism’ denotes reference to an idea or ideology) is, firstly, the recognition of the fact that nations exist; to acknowledge that bonds exist between people through culture, language, ideas and race. More importantly, though, to be a nationalist is to relish in and care for one’s own identity, the identity of one’s folk, as well as the recognition of other nations’ God-given right to sovereignty, self-determination and survival. A nationalist loves his people, and consistently demonstrates a willingness to defend the existence and prosperity of his folk, no matter the cost. A nationalist places the loyalty he has towards his kin before all other obligations, including those to the state which governs his nation. In fact, most of the confusion as to what a nation truly is stems from its modernised use as a synonym for the word ‘country’. This is absolutely incorrect; a nation and a country (or ‘state’) are entirely different entities, as will be explained…

As has been examined, a nation is an organic entity – a large group of people who are intrinsically united through a common sense of heritage embodied in the contexts of culture and blood. On the other hand, a country (or state) is a political construct. It denotes the political construct of a territory, controlled by a form of government, which contains a populous which owes political allegiance to its governors. This is the difference at its most basic: A nation is an organism, while a country is a frail political construct.

The confusion between the two terms (born of the way in which the word ‘nation’ is, oftentimes, used synonymously with ‘state’ and ‘country’) stems from the fact that countries typically reflect the attitudes of the nations over which they govern. That is to say that states are, indeed, subject to be influenced by the nations over which they govern. This in turn stems from the fact that countries are erected in the first place by nations in order for a nation to provide itself with a form of governance and order. Indeed, more than one nation can live under the same country as another, but at least one of those nations will always be considered the ‘host’ nation as it will be their country that both groups are living in. For example, in the country of Australia there exists one host nation: The European-Australian. This is the nation that created the state of Australia from the ground up, and in its original embodiment, it was a state that properly reflected the values, ideas and interests of the European-Australian nation. Today, however, Australia is no longer a nation-state (a state which properly embodies the identity of its founding nation). Today, it – like the majority of white countries – is described as a ‘modern state’; a state which disassociates itself from the identity of the host nation, and which applies the overarching ideas of democratic-liberalism to all citizens regardless of nationality. Today, the European-Australian (as well as the Aboriginal-Australian, the prehistoric native populous of Australia who enjoy a monumental offering of affirmative action under the Australian state) is surrounded by those with whom he hasn’t a thing in common, but who are viewed as being just as rightful a member of Australian society as he. These invasive, alien groups are most greatly embodied in the significant minorities of the so-called ‘Asian-Australians’ and ‘Middle-Eastern- or Arab-Australians’. Similarly, in the USA, there exists the European-Americans and African-Americans (amongst a multitude of other nations, including Latino-Americans). Due to this demographic dilution, the founding nation of the European-American is no longer properly represented by the modern republic of the USA. The state has, instead, been hijacked by those who advocate for internationalism and globalisation, placing those who do not belong on equal footing with those whose forefathers built the state in which they relish. This is a demonstration of the way in which countries reflect the ideas, values and interests of the nation(s) over which they govern, which carries with it a certain strain of vulnerability – the fact that immigrant nations can effectively hijack the attitudes and systems of the state, making things grossly unpleasant for the host nation.

It is important to recognise the existence (and significance) of nationality as this is the most vital step in understanding why it is that the European nations (both at home and in the peripheral territories of European civilisation) now face a major existential crisis. Mainstream political figures and supporters of multiculturalism will often draw attention to what they perceive as the most important component of the process of immigration: ‘integration’ and ‘assimilation’. These notions propagate the idea that an immigrant living in a country different to his own can distance (and eventually sever) himself from his own national identity and instead become a member of the host nation living in the country he has migrated to. This is fundamentally incorrect. It is absolutely impossible for one to discard his own identity and replace it with another. One may become a citizen of a country other than their own, but they will never truly be a part of that society, or of the host nation. They will always be a foreigner. A Frenchman cannot become Chinese by relinquishing his French citizenship, replacing it with a Chinese one, learning Mandarin and living there amongst the Chinese people. He could live his entire adult life in China and even forget how to speak French, but the man would never be Chinese because his racial identity is unalienable and undeniable; he and his offspring (should he couple with a non-Chinese woman) will never truly be Chinese. The same principle applies: an African man cannot be born in England to African parents and be considered a part of the English nation because his identity is fundamentally different; the cultures to which his family belongs and his association with those back in his bloodline’s land of origin remind him that he is not, and never will be, an Englishman, no matter how thick his accent may be. National identity is absolute within oneself and cannot be changed, no matter how hard one hates himself. You are what you are.

Recognising that cultural integration is flawed in that one cannot change his national identity, the true crisis that arises from non-European immigration into what once were the European nation-states sprouts from an inherent unwillingness possessed by immigrants to ‘integrate’ in the first place (again, if it were even possible to begin with). We are able to observe throughout Europe and Australia today that immigrants who are permitted to congregate into densely-concentrated suburban living areas best described as ghettos feel as though they are under no obligation to respect the laws, customs and ideas of the country they are living in. This phenomenon breeds notions of esotericism within immigrant communities and provides immigrants with an environment in which they may propagate the continuation and spread of their own culture. This occurs at the detriment of the host nation in two ways. Firstly, tolerating the creation and expansion of immigrant ghettos allows for the continual growth of non-European culture inside European countries. This in turn harms the demographic balance of a given European country, with the host nation becoming gradually less prevalent, even becoming a minority in extreme cases. Thus, the host nation loses control over its own country, and is suddenly subject to the ideas, systems and customs of foreign nations. Secondly, and of greatest significance, the ideas which third-world immigrants propagate are in direct opposition to those of European nations. Unable to distance themselves from their unescapable sense of identity and societal values, immigrants who are surrounded and supported by others like them will attempt to deliberately force these cultural and societal traits upon members of the host nation. It is unreasonable to expect immigrants to want to change their identity and it is dangerous to expect them not to intentionally force their incompatible ways of life upon us – the European host nations – in order to make themselves more comfortable. This intentional attack upon the values and systems which we know to be our own can be observed in the ‘Muslim patrol’ phenomenon sweeping northern- and central-England and (to a lesser extent) some parts of Germany. It can also be seen in the every-day life of the families living in these immigrant ghetto-communities, in which the standards of living and positive regard for laws and community practices are severely degraded. It is also seen in the fracturing of half-native, half-immigrant communities & neighbourhoods in which people of completely different cultures are forced to live side-by-side. There is no mutual benefit here for either group, and certainly not for the native populous. Surrounded by foreign customs, languages and standards of living, these natives whom may have lived in a given area for generations are forced to make a decision: Leave, or tolerate a lesser quality of life brought on by a hostile community. The European nations are being robbed of their right to national sovereignty, self-determination, and even existence. This phenomenon is seen everywhere, from London, where over 50% of permanent residents are non-British [1], to Sydney, Australia, where a significant trend of domestic migration northward to the state-capital of Brisbane has been observed due to the density of Middle-Eastern immigrant suburban communities in Sydney’s western regions.

While it is a frightening concept, it is ignorant for one to deny that should current trends continue, the European nations will face a crisis which threatens not only the prevalence of their identity, but also their very existence. With reproduction rates so low (relative to the exceedingly high reproduction rates of Middle-Eastern and African immigrants) and immigration rates dangerously high, Europe and its peripheral territories have a choice to make: Wake up now and take action through democratic means, or continue to live in blissful ignorance until the system of democracy becomes a weapon to be used against you, leaving violence as the only viable option to defend your race and way of life. If you do not fight with pen & paper now, then your children will be forced to fight with fists & firearms. If nothing is done and Europeans refuse to stand up before it simply becomes too late, we will lie in the wake of a future in which Europeans will have been bred and murdered out of existence in order to make room for the exponential growth of the third-world nations.

Nationalism is the only solution to this ongoing threat. The clash between cultures we are observing in the western world today is a clash between nations. In order to win this battle, whether it be through lawful means or through warfare, the pacifism which has corrupted the soul of modern European civilisation must be annihilated. This can only be done through the restoration of ethnic, cultural and pan-racial pride, and the abolition of the guilt which pertains to one being white/European. Europeans across the world are taught from a young age that all of the ills in the world are the fault of Europeans; it is a demoralising and corruptive notion that may ultimately prove to be our downfall. This is because before we can win in a struggle of nations, we must be willing to fight in the first place. At this stage, we are not. Our folk are more inclined to kneel before the spectre of death than to fight against the alien hordes which seek to rob them of their forefathers’ heritage. Nationalism, at its core, is to love and have pride in one’s identity and those who are his folk, making it a naturally suitable ideology to combat the illness of pacifism, and to reverse the ‘take-it-lying-down’ attitude that the majority of Europeans possess concerning the destruction of their countries and the suffocation of their nations.

Nationalism is essential to the survival of all the European nations. Without this restoration of pride and identity on both a national and pan-racial scale, Europeans will have no reason to fight as a united front. Instead, they will wait, only realising the horrific result of their ethnomasochism as they die alone at the hands of malicious third-world hordes who view the European man as an oppressive monster. From Lisbon to Athens, from London to Moscow, from Ottawa to Canberra and from Cape Town to Buenos Aires, Europeans must embrace the ideas of nationalism with all their heart and soul, lest our civilisation fall into ruin and our identity disappear forever.

Notes:

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20680565 … http://www.standard.co.uk/news/more-ethnic-pupils-than-whites-in-london-schools-6368734.html
Tagged with:
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA *