Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Where is it NOT happening?

Watch this one:
https://youtu.be/i94TSwnFsHM

It's possible by the end of this century that genetic signposts will become hidden.

His final words are epic and undeniable.

You seem to struggle with the naive notion that cultural and racial blending will not be stopped.

The human family tree:
https://youtu.be/lkexKLCak5M

I could care less about racial and cultural blending (OK, to be 100% accurate, I do care in the sense that without it I would not personally exist! Yep, I'm one of those ...). But the fact remains that we here in the US / The Americas are way, way more accepting of such concepts than the rest of the world. There are several countries where marrying a foreigner let alone mixing genes, will forfeit citizenship. Hard to believe, I know. But it is true.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm not agnostic at all about this (obviously). We have already failed and those who do not see it are whistling past the graveyard. The world is a mean place. Calvinism only works within a certain cultural framework. Outside that framework, it is hopeless. The US / Calvinists are in for a very rude awakening. I believe it will happen prior to 2025. BTW - this is some real crow for me to eat personally, as a recovered Globalist Utopian who was a teen aged Trotskyite!

And if you're lucky, you will recover from this mistaken diversion and come back to the true path

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I could care less about racial and cultural blending (OK, to be 100% accurate, I do care in the sense that without it I would not personally exist! Yep, I'm one of those ...). But the fact remains that we here in the US / The Americas are way, way more accepting of such concepts than the rest of the world. There are several countries where marrying a foreigner let alone mixing genes, will forfeit citizenship. Hard to believe, I know. But it is true.

But that is a relatively recent attitude, and the trends of the modern world will wipe it out. Mostly not by utopian ideas, but the simple facts of travel, information and media and the needs of people to migrate. Reactionary ideas like those in "several countries" are anachronisms; they will fall. They certainly won't set the agenda for everyone else.

My own ancestry is fairly uniform, but who knows what I will see if I take Dr. Wells' test!

Originally Posted by millennialX

We are not in a 1T.

I don't know how you got that from my post, but I never said we were. I pointed out for you when the Glorious Revolution happened there was a brief moment of "feel-good" in both England and America (for different reasons) which then subsided in both places when other issues popped up for them both.

The Glorious Revolution was quite obviously the "Regeneracy" of that 4T, and in both cases it didn't pop up until many many years after the 4T had started.

Likewise, if you look at the Wars of the Roses 4T, the "Regeneracy" occurred when Edward IV stabilized things for a brief period when Henry VI was "found" dead in the Tower of London in 1471. There'd been an earlier attempt at a regeneracy in 1461, but it was botched when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville, a widow with two children whose family had fought for the other side... who after marrying Edward then proceeded to advance her family through advantageous marriages and titles, which caused Edward's allies to buckle and grumble discontentedly and eventually turn on him.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I don't know how you got that from my post, but I never said we were. I pointed out for you when the Glorious Revolution happened there was a brief moment of "feel-good" in both England and America (for different reasons) which then subsided in both places when other issues popped up for them both.

The Glorious Revolution was quite obviously the "Regeneracy" of that 4T, and in both cases it didn't pop up until many many years after the 4T had started.

Likewise, if you look at the Wars of the Roses 4T, the "Regeneracy" occurred when Edward IV stabilized things for a brief period when Henry VI was "found" dead in the Tower of London in 1471. There'd been an earlier attempt at a regeneracy in 1461, but it was botched when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville, a widow with two children whose family had fought for the other side... who after marrying Edward then proceeded to advance her family through advantageous marriages and titles, which caused Edward's allies to buckle and grumble discontentedly and eventually turn on him.

~Chas'88

I actually thought you were trying to correct me and I was clarifying that I don't believe we are in one.

Apologies for the delays guys. I've just been busy over the last couple of days with activities on the domestic front but I am back now and ready to roll.

Welcome to the board, dude.

I am really digging the spluttering disbelief being exhibited by "blue" Americans on this thread when confronted by someone who doesn't share their belief system. Colin Woodward's thesis confirmed again, as usual.

Thank you for your compliments mate. Much appreciated. To be honest I am glad to have discussions with the liberals on here because at the end of the day, it does provide food for thought and I believe all of us can learn something new from one another in order to better improve the times that we all live in. Just because I am a nationalist, it dosen't mean I am against liberals in general. I just ask them to kindly respect my beliefs and I will do the same.

Also just to rectify - I'm not a white nationalist power skin head or anything along those lines. I'd consider myself to be more a national conservative along with being a global nationalist. That is I support all peoples of the world to have, to maintain and to protect their own homelands. I support the right of Europeans to maintain their homelands, I support the right of Africans to maintain theirs, Asians, etc, etc. There is something very beautiful in this world and as a boy, I always looked at the different races, their cultures, their creeds and found the beauty in diversity. But not in one's homeland for it is our home on the planet Earth. We may all share this Earth but we have our house in it and we have the right to protect it. To go abroad and see the countries of the Earth with their own inhabitants and traditions is a very beautiful experience and I wish to see that preserved, if the people so wish it.

I hope that members on here will come to appreciate my own views and perhaps I'll be to 'win' a few converts to my own ideas along the way. We shall see.

Such a right is not desirable as people advance and learn. National identity and homeland is not important to enlightened, free-thinking folks who enjoy life and culture. It just doesn't matter. What's good is good and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Europe moved well in advance of America in its liberal values and policies. I doubt most young people will want to give up this advanced condition and embrace fear and zenophobia instead.

What you describe here is essentially individualism. This concept itself is obviously quite popular in the United States and it does have ground in Western European countries I must confess. Yet we must also remember that once again, there is a dividing line between America and Europe. In America, where the 1960s baby boomer movement started, individualism and personal liberalism was in a way closely intertwined with the founding beliefs of the country. It was an evolution in a sense from the equality of man and the U.S constitution's bill of rights. Yet Europe itself still had and does to an extent a more collectivist mindset when it comes to identity and culture.

For example, in my own native Britain, nationalism is actually at an all time high. Throughout the centuries and even today, the Monarchy is held in high esteem by the Millennials. Support for the Monarchy has not been this high since Diana's death in '97. The Millennials love to watch the Royal Family out on engagements and the festivals they get themselves involved with. Why? Because it makes them feel proud to be British...the Queen is an important symbol of our nationhood and the Millennials love it. They like having that unique identity.

Also nationalism is running high right now in Scotland. The majority of voters in the Scottish referendum last year was Millennials. The vast majority that voted to remain in the Union was the Boomers/Gen X. Why? Because the Scottish youth want to have their own independence. They want to see Scotland as an independent nation making its own affairs on the world stage. Despite the failure of the referendum, the Scottish National Party (SNP) is now making a huge comeback in the polls and is poised for the first time in generations to wipe the Labour Party firmly out of Scotland. If this happens, Labour would lose a huge chunk of their core vote and it is well known that Labour's stronghold is Scotland. If that happens, we could very well start to see further devolutions of powers when it comes to Scotland with eventual independence perhaps sometime this century.

A slower but similar process is also taking place in Wales too with Plaid Cymru. Once again, it is a nationalist party advocating for the protection of Welsh culture and the right for the Welsh to govern themselves. The Welsh language has made a huge come back in recent years that for my own English ears, it is like visiting another country. And you know what? It is beautiful to hear them speak in Welsh, it really is. I hope Scotland revives their own Gaelic dialect too one day.

Once again, you cite that Millennials have no interest in homelands or national cultures yet we see even in the UK the revival of long deceased identities! In the 21st century! Quite incredible really.

I don't see how a lifeless, oppressed society where everyone is poor is one of brotherhood and pure socialism. They never got a chance to embrace materialism, though now some oligarchs, led by the chief one, have embraced greed. The communist model in Russia and Eastern Europe was very bad for the environment.

The USSR wasn't that lifeless. The problem is when Westerners try to look at the USSR, they only see Stalinism and the 1930s/1940s. My own Russian friends agree that the period under Stalin was not pleasant and led to many atrocities. They admit that. But it was AFTER Stalin life started to really improve in the USSR. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the USSR started to embrace a 'liberalisation' period under Khrushchev. Fashion, music, even films from the West actually was permitted to a certain extent in the USSR. Yet they also developed their own strong domestic entertainment culture with their own TV shows, music, and fashion. I've watched plenty of these shows and they really are good to watch. I'd say about the same quality as what we had in the West back then.

Food, clothes, medicine, wasn't a problem for them back in the USSR. People actually were content with what they had. Yes, they didn't have the same glorious celebrity lifestyles Americans had but they actually had peaceful, happy lives. Like my friends said, they could go out to play late at night without worry of crime, there would be food on the table when they got home and entertainment on the TV. They were contented and did not become envious over what others had. This as a result brought people closer together rather then the jealous "Catching up with the Jones's" culture that became the norm in the West.

The only problems for Russia apart from Stalin was when the USSR collapsed in '91. This period is known to them as "The Hard 90s". Unlike the very easy 90s for Westerners, for Russians it truly was an era very much like the Great Depression. Yet due to their nationalism, they pulled through, they rebuilt their country and they are proud of what they have accomplished since. The important factor of solidarity, patriotism and cooperation emphasized under Communism helped them to stick it through. We call it "The Dunkirk Spirit" here in Britain.

How many spoilt, materialistic Westerners could go through a major depression and pull through together as a people? Especially in America? Unlike the Russians, America would burn if it ever reached that level. People would not simply be able to cope.

As for oppression - people did not fear the KGB or the security services post Stalin's death. The infamous "knocks at the door" disappeared and only people involved with trying to subvert the government was arrested. Which is the same in Western countries.

Sure, it wasn't the land of milk and honey but it wasn't as bad as people thought it was. Crazily enough, today Russians have more freedom of speech then we could even dream of in the West. Criticize the holy political correctness and potentially see your life destroyed. So much for freedom, eh?

I think we have to look at the USSR with new glasses on and get away from the old propagandistic "they are oppressed, we are free" mentality. When you discover what there is behind the iron curtain, it really does surprise you. Oh and another thing - people never feared nuclear war, either. There was no crazy "rush to the bunkers!" and people didn't live in fear. The government censored it yet they were happy. They never lived their lives in fear. Like my Russian friends said, "people are more worried today due to 24 hour international news then they ever were in the USSR. News reports of the successful grain harvest time and again actually makes people feel easier then constant news of death and destruction." Makes you wonder really.

Le Penn is declining, and so will all right-wing parties. Nationalism is passe.

Not true. Le Penn is actually growing in popularity, especially with Millennials in France frustrated by the government's inability to deal with Islamic extremism. The Charle Hebdo attack was a political gold mine for Le Penn. Analysts actually do believe one day she could become President of France if the country continues to take a downward spiral....I actually think she'd make an excellent President to be honest. They need another Joan of Arc and I really feel Marine Le Penn not only would save France but give it a kick into high gear.

Nationalism itself is not dying in Europe but growing. As I pointed out above, regional nationalism like with Scotland and Wales is growing but also in other regions of Europe such as the Basque country and Catalonia in Spain, the Northern parts of Italy, Flanders in Belgium and even areas of France such as Normandy! And who are the big drivers? The Millennials.

The problem is Europe once again is not like America. You cannot pigeon hole all European Millennials like you can American Millennials. In America, its usually red vs blue. That does not exist in Europe. You can have a universally liberal population such as the Dutch that have very strong Calvinistic footholds throughout the country. Then you have the Spanish and Portuguese which are pushing towards more socialism and liberalism yet still remain a very socially conservative culture. Then you have the Italians which are some of the most conservative people at times you can meet mixed in with their own liberal ideas. Then you have the Greeks which despite being traditionally part of NATO and the West for over 60 years is actually one of the most conservative with gay marriage and immigration being big no-no's, especially amongst the Millennials. Then you have Scandinavia which is socially liberal yet very quickly becomes nationalistic when they feel threatened as we can witness with nationalist parties winning votes in these countries. Finland is probably the most patriotic out of the whole lot and I have yet to really meet a Finn who wasn't a patriot of some kind.

My point is - there is no clear definition in Europe. They mix liberalism and nationalism together when it suits their own needs. Even the Millennials.

My own prediction is that when the EU eventually collapses, Europeans will start to vote in more national conservative governments and coalitions. The potential is very much there and is not disappearing at all. I'd argue that Gen X here are more liberal then the Millennials that tend to be more 50/50.

Putin has made the first moves in Georgia and Ukraine. Russia is quite aggressive in how far it has advanced. Look at their huge territory, almost as big as Genghis Khan's. No, Russia is not as aggressive as imperial German Reichs, but it needs to be contained. It will be, and will inspire no-one.

Actually it was America that first made moves in George and the Ukraine. Putin was too busy rebuilding the country. It is well know the Georgians provoked that conflict with Russia and got their backsides handed to them. Georgia was hoping to get America involved but obviously Uncle Sam was too busy to really get involved. Then the Ukraine was obviously "payback" for Putin stopping the U.S intervention to support ISIS in Syria....quite strange how within just two months of Putin preventing NATO bombings the Ukraine explodes into a revolution. Which was supported by Neo-Nazis whom were quietly supported by Uncle Sam.

Like I said before, do not poke the bear. Had America left Georgia and Ukraine alone then Putin would have done likewise. Russians are very defensive people. You attack them, they'll fight back. Otherwise they tend to sit tight. They don't have the same mentality of interfering in another nation's affairs like the U.S which adopted this mindset from the previous British Empire. If anything, Russia's wars in the past have always been about re-claiming lost land they originally belonged to them, not imperial ambitions in the same guise as the Anglo nations.

As for Russia being as big as Genghis Khan's empire, actually all of that land originally did belong to Russia to begin with. Their Scythian ancestors once traversed and settled the land all the way to China. They lost much of it over the years and were brutally conquered by the Khan. Yet they recovered, took back what was theirs and when they did take the rest, well compared to the United States, it really was barren land with remaining populations left over from Genghis still remaining. Yet unlike the Americans that saw it as "a holy duty" to cleanse the native Americans from their land, the Russians never did. They left the native populations in peace and once again, it was only Josef Stalin that contributed to a genocide.

Yet to this day, they remain quite happy living in their own communities and have little desire to leave the nation. There is no "white guilt" in Russia because there wasn't the same colonialist expansionism like we saw with the other European powers.

As for inspiring no one, well considering there is a huge Christian revival happening in Russia now plus there are the Fatima prophecies and other visions detailing Russia's destiny to bring light to the world, I think it remains to be seen. But from what I have seen of the Russian people and of the Americans, I can see why God Has given the task of rebuilding the faith of Russia.

I agree; may it be so, if that's what people decide. When the 4T climaxes, however, in the 2020s, the right and left in America will be more belligerent than today. But this is a saeculum of success and comfort in the USA, and Americans are used to it; and so we'll see just how far it goes.

Glad we can agree. Personally though I still think it'll be more the 2030s when the situation reaches a climax. A British think tank recently made a video a couple of years ago detailing a crash period and many problems in the 2030s. Of course this could all kick off in the mid 2020s and eventually reach its end point in the late 2030s/early 2040s. Still there is something about the 2030s that makes me think it'll be a rough period where as the 2040s is when a true recovery begins. But only God knows. I can merely speculate.

Globalization, like every other system, can be good or bad, depending on how it is structured. If it is one society or corporate monoliths ruling the world, no, that is not what we want. Instead, it means that we all are learning from all cultures, without any one dominating, and moving beyond traditions that oppress us and limit our thinking. That's what nations and religions do. They don't make people happy. Traditional "identity" is not that important to people who rise up and glimpse what life is about, as all young people today can do. Real identity is shaped by what we each offer as creative spirits. The Three Revolutionary Movements are global, and they are liberating. Look to those ideals, and there will be no oppressive globalization, but instead, global freedom.

How do you know if nations and religions don't make people happy? It depends ultimately on the society in question. That maybe your opinion yet I see it from a different perspective. Yes, people may learn from other cultures and enjoy them but it does not mean they are willing to give up on their traditional identities. I've had Iranian friends who have told me that whilst there are things they do enjoy in the West, they could never abandon their native Iran as the culture there is something very special to them. Iran is "home" to them and it makes them feel happy to be there. Yes, they want to offer more liberties but at the same time, they do not wish to abandon their Shia Islamic traditions or their native culture. It gives them a sense of identity and pride which there is nothing wrong with.

Same with my Jewish friends. They like being Jews, they like attending the synagogue, they like to go to Israel because it has a special connection to them. They wish no one any ill yet they identify with being Jews and it makes them happy. Even the Millennials too, I'd like to add.

The truth is - people are travelling more then ever and experiencing new cultures and ways of doing things. Yet "home" will always be home to them. Once again, if it makes them happy, then that is a good thing and should be something to be celebrated. There is nothing wrong in talking to people from other cultures and learning from them. Yet to call nationalism and religion meaningless when it gives people a meaning to their lives is not true.

There needs to be a liberalism and a conservatism - a balance. One should not rule over the other. Instead they should co-exist. The new and the old can co-exist peacefully and provide many wonderful opportunities. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare one supreme over the other. We are all God's children yet He made us in many diverse ways and we should celebrate this.

Let the nations and religions remain and lets live together in peace. Thats my fundamental belief and I'm sticking to it.

If old traditions and values give people life and freedom, they will survive and inspire the world-- as they should. Great art and great insight comes from the past, and we are the first people to be able to learn from and be inspired by all of it, everywhere on Earth. But where they oppress and limit people, in those aspects they will die.

I agree with this. But let us not try to enforce values onto other's. Oppression will disappear, I agree. But remember - proclaiming sovereignty of one ideology over another is also oppression. I have been oppressed for my views by the liberal politically correct society I live in just because I want to preserve all nations, including my own. That is not freedom of debate or thought but another form of oppression. Let us hope the totalitarian PC culture dies with all oppression.

Global society is just the fact today. We are all part of one world. Accepting the facts means seeing that freedom and liberation is not emerging from an evolving religion or a nation, but from movements to which all young people now have access. You can't confine these movements. That's the point. Put your hope and faith in these, and not in national and religious identities.

We have always been part of one world. We just have the ability to access it more easily then ever before. Yet we maybe one world but we are of many houses. I think you will find the vast majority of people, even the young, feel more of a connection to their own ethnic, tribal and religious identities, even the Arab Spring protesters. Yes, they may want new ideas but it does not mean they wish to destroy the old. I like to think of it as Meiji Era Japan. Japan adopted Western ideas and technology yet at the same time retained their age old ethnic and cultural system. Even to this day it still remains in place with Japan producing its ever infamous anime cartoons to broadcast its culture to the world. Yet this comes from their age old traditions that they still wish to maintain to this day. Nothing wrong in that. Ask anyone from Japan though if they want to become a multi-ethnic society like Britain, even their Millennials and they would recoil in horror.

We can accept new ideas but it does not mean we have to abandon the old. Like I said previously, its about the balance and what makes people happy.

The young people want new ideas; their dictators impose old ideas upon them in order to stay in power. It is the dictators and fanatics who are destroying old traditions; look at the obscene actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of the IS in Mosul. And Al Qaeda and Boka Horam. Yet these are the assholes trumpeting themselves as protecting "identity!" They are just bullies, and the world needs none of them ever again. They need to be blasted back to hell where they belong, and the sooner the better. Don't you agree?

Actually when it comes to dictators imposing old ideas in order to remain in power, I only really see that in North Korea. Otherwise most countries with more authoritian governments actually have embraced modernization. Iran is a very post-modern society when it comes to technology. They can even get Western imports. Syria under Assad actually was making progress towards democracy and its economy was actually growing with Western fast food chains setting up residence in the nation. The nation was even embracing the internet and had a fast growing hi-tech service economy. Colonel Qadhafi had turned Libya into a very prosperous state. Yet U.S backed extremists destroyed all of this I am afraid to say.

Look Colonel Qadhafi was no angel neither is Bashar al-Assad. Yet when it comes down to it, both countries actually needed a strong man due to the nature of the population and its demographic profile. You had too many divisions between different ethnic groups in order for a full blown transition to liberal democracy to successfully work over night. Yet eventually both Libya and Syria would have slowly modernised and liberalised as time went on. I tend to view it as the liberalisation of the old absolute monarchies in Europe. It would have taken a while but eventually the transition would have been smoother and less bloodier then it is now.

As for ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Boka Horam, they are just extremist groups and are no better then the IRA or Christian extremists. Heck there are even environmental extremists and left wing anarchists. Violence is violence and is wrong no matter what. It dosen't mean this has anything to do with tradition. Even an animal rights extremist can turn violent.

You can't stop immigration as long as one area is more desirable than another. And you shouldn't. Recognize their value as people just like you. The only solution is for more freedom and opportunity to come to Middle East lands, as the young Arab rebels want. Only then will immigration slow down. Entrenched dictators and imperialists stand in their way. The Revolution will overthrow them and establish freedom and justice in those lands. But Europeans should understand the need for people to escape the trauma that is inevitable until the Revolution succeeds. Europeans need to help these people, and understand their needs. Accept them into their countries until they can go home, and help them go home by helping the Revolution succeed; not by imposing on others' sovereignty, but when rebels ask for help they should get it. Not doing all this is just cruel nonsense. We are all one people on one planet.

Actually this is something I came to the conclusion a while ago. It is rather unfair is it not for the Western world to have more prosperity compared to the other areas of the globe. I can see why the Arab immigrants would want to come to European lands. Yet at the same time, the problem lies with the United States. Had you left the secular dictators in power, eventually life would have improved for the Arabs and there would be no need for mass migration and civil wars. Do you think the Arab Spring meticulously appeared out of nowhere? Heck no - it was supported by good ol George Soros and his "colour revolutions" brigade. I know of Syrians who have said that whilst the Assads in particular stomped down on dissent quite harshly, they also kept the peace and life actually wasn't that bad. Now all they know is war and suffering. The vast majority of Syrians actually supported the Assads because they knew if the Assads fell from power, then the whole country would turn into anarchy. I guess they were right with that after all. Point is, it was American imperialist meddling that has caused the loss of lives in the Mid East and is causing major problems for European countries in the long run.

You know what I think? It should be up to you Americans to rehouse and re home these refugees until they can return home safely. Its your nation's fault for all this mess and it should be your country that takes care of these people, not a cash strapped Europe. Your mess, you clean it up. Really we should process these people and safely ship them to U.S shores.

Also if we keep having mass waves of people from Islamic nations into Europe, eventually we could end up with a potential civil war ourselves which means more people that die. All for U.S imperialistic ambitions. Sorry but asking Europe to clean up after you is purely unfair.

We can also look at polls from Europe and realize that most Millies there aren't joining up with far-right, racist, nationalist parties. The few that do are definitely using the internet as a recruiting tool, but mostly because they can't get any traction anywhere else.

I wasn't actually referring to racist parties. I was actually talking about many different nationalist movements including the civic nationalists. Nationalism and identity is growing amongst the Millennials - it dosen't have to be Neo-Nazi extremism you know? Like I mentioned with the Scottish nationalists, the Welsh nationalists, the Basque nationalists, etc, etc.

Over in Europe the 4T is mainly about the failure of the EU. I'm a left-wing internationalist who despises nationalism with a passion, and so I find the rise of the nationalist Right in Europe to be deeply disturbing. If we have to bail you guys out again when Europe spawns a lunatic who decides to Holocaust all Muslims in Europe Your nationalism will deserve to be crushed for good.

But it is America responsible for Europe's rising nationalism. Your nation had it in its eyes to try and turn Europe into another "United States" along with the promotion of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. Personally I doubt we will see another Hitler but I hold you Americans personally responsible for the fate of Europe. You know, Europeans are not racist in general but when you flood their homelands with many different peoples and tell them "it is for their own good, they need it, its great", then obviously racism is going to increase.

You Americans should stay out of Europe and sort out your own problems. You should not tell us what to do.

Look I don't hate Americans in general. Many of my friends are Americans and actually agree with me. Yet at the same time, I do not like Americans telling us Europeans how to govern our own countries and societies. We belong here, this is our homeland and has been for thousands of years. We are not immigrants like you Americans. Most of us even come from towns and villages and cities that our ancestors have lived in for millennia. Perhaps an American cannot appreciate it but for a European who sees this radically changed in a blink of an eye, it can be extremely depressing. All of that history, gone. A shame, you know? A crying shame.

Now I know what the native Americans feel like, heh.

You know though Odin, I'm actually not a racist person. I became a nationalist because I felt envious of my friends from other countries feel proud to have a homeland to go back to. It made them happy, you know? I felt I had no identity, no home compared to them. It made me depressed. Then I came to realise that every group needs a place to call home and that made me a global nationalist. As I explained in my previous post, I support all races and cultures to have their own homelands. Heck, I'd love to even see the native Americans get a few states entirely for themselves to govern and live as they see fit. Not those ridiculous reservations they have now.

Ksim, would you mind stating your age if it hasn't been done in the thread yet? You could put in your profile, like I and others have. It helps interpretation to know where you are coming from.

This is evolving into an interesting thread. Haven't been able to run through the whole thing yet, but it's the kind of thoughtful discussion I would like to take part of in here. As you have noticed most threads quickly devolve into ideological and political mayhem, and yes, I sometimes belong to the guilty party as well.

And yes, welcome and glad to have you onboard, sir!

"You Americans should stay out of Europe and sort out your own problems. You should not tell us what to do.
Look I don't hate Americans in general. Many of my friends are Americans and actually agree with me."

I'm an American and I agree with you.
I'll also note that many so-called liberal Americans don't like multiculturalism i.e. would love to see "conservative" values in our country stomped out of existence.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

"
I'll also note that many so-called liberal Americans don't like multiculturalism i.e. would love to see "conservative" values in our country stomped out of existence.

What are these conservative values?

Romanticizing thrift for labor while a 20% tax on billionaires is considered theft? (Obama's a commie!)

Rejection of science and suspicion of all education as a liberal conspiracy? (Hint: education IS a liberation conspiracy)

Racism, misogyny, and homophobia?

Really though. Tell me about some modern conservative values that aren't hate-based and socially destructive.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

What are these conservative values?

Romanticizing thrift for labor while a 20% tax on billionaires is considered theft? (Obama's a commie!)

Rejection of science and suspicion of all education as a liberal conspiracy? (Hint: education IS a liberation conspiracy)

Racism, misogyny, and homophobia?

Really though. Tell me about some modern conservative values that aren't hate-based and socially destructive.

Your rant here reveals a large amount of hatred on your part, eh?
You've essentially proven my point. Thanks.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Your rant here reveals a large amount of hatred on your part, eh?
You've essentially proven my point. Thanks.

I wasn't trying to refute your point: I was asking you to explain why it was a bad thing!

I'll be honest with you - I am pretty angry about it, but mostly because I've grown up in and become attached to a place where these "conservative values" have ruled, uncontested, for a long long time. The results can only be described as... disastrous. Letting go of hatred only reveals pity, even self-directed when I realize how futile it is to harbor so much anger against ideas.

Unless your ecological endgame is the actual destruction of civilization... I guess that might make sense from your perspective. Unfortunately, it looks like suburban sprawl will destroy the environment without generating much civilization at all. Sounds like a lose-lose to me.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I wasn't trying to refute your point: I was asking you to explain why it was a bad thing!

Why what was a bad thing?
Not good or bad ... just ironic that many of the same folks touting multiculturalism also want the "red states" to secede!

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Why what was a bad thing?
Not good or bad ... just ironic that many of the same folks touting multiculturalism also want the "red states" to secede!

Yes! Let them secede, and we can have multi-nations!

Sorta like Tom Lehrer, we liberals believe in loving one another, not hating one another, but we know there are people who hate, and we HATE people like that!
https://youtu.be/BPNsr0mhcrY

Originally Posted by Ksim

But it is America responsible for Europe's rising nationalism. Your nation had it in its eyes to try and turn Europe into another "United States" along with the promotion of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. Personally I doubt we will see another Hitler but I hold you Americans personally responsible for the fate of Europe. You know, Europeans are not racist in general but when you flood their homelands with many different peoples and tell them "it is for their own good, they need it, its great", then obviously racism is going to increase.

You Americans should stay out of Europe and sort out your own problems. You should not tell us what to do.

With all due respect this comes across to me as a bit of psychological projection onto and the scapegoating of the US, here. When the mentality is that "Only ethnic Germans are real Germans" it leads to the attitude that ethnic minorities, like Jews, can never be naturalized and assimilated into being "real Germans". It is an attitude that leads directly to atrocities, it lead to the Holocaust. I remember as a child seeing news on the TV about the horrors going on in the former Yugoslavia exactly because of this attitude. Bosnians and Albanians getting massacred because the Serbs did not want other people in "their land".

We tried minding out own business after the first world war, the result was Hitler.

Originally Posted by Ksim

Look I don't hate Americans in general. Many of my friends are Americans and actually agree with me. Yet at the same time, I do not like Americans telling us Europeans how to govern our own countries and societies. We belong here, this is our homeland and has been for thousands of years. We are not immigrants like you Americans. Most of us even come from towns and villages and cities that our ancestors have lived in for millennia. Perhaps an American cannot appreciate it but for a European who sees this radically changed in a blink of an eye, it can be extremely depressing. All of that history, gone. A shame, you know? A crying shame.

Now I know what the native Americans feel like, heh.

My ancestors on my mom's side come from East Prussia, which only became German something like 750 years ago, not "millennia". I do not know whether my ancestors were forcibly Germanized Baltics or Saxons invited east to settle. Your problem is that you are treating national and ethnic identities as discrete, concrete things, wrongly projecting modern identities into the past.

We are trying to give you advice because we have experience in assimilating immigrants into what is essentially an English and Scottish derived culture. We may be mostly Scandinavian and German by ancestry here in Minnesota, but culturally the Great Lakes states are a western extension of the old Puritan WASP New England culture. I am culturally far more similar to a person in rural upstate New York or rural Vermont than I am to my blood relatives on my dad's side still living in western Norway. My family was fully assimilated by the 3rd generation in the US (my dad's).

To be quite frank, the reason you are having trouble with immigrants is because you simply suck at assimilating them into the local cultures. This leaves the 2nd generation alienated and thus a convenient target for recruitment by fanatical loonies, thus the stories of teenagers trying to join ISIS.

Originally Posted by Ksim

You know though Odin, I'm actually not a racist person. I became a nationalist because I felt envious of my friends from other countries feel proud to have a homeland to go back to. It made them happy, you know? I felt I had no identity, no home compared to them. It made me depressed. Then I came to realise that every group needs a place to call home and that made me a global nationalist. As I explained in my previous post, I support all races and cultures to have their own homelands. Heck, I'd love to even see the native Americans get a few states entirely for themselves to govern and live as they see fit. Not those ridiculous reservations they have now.

This is all good sentiment in theory, but it can also lead to trying to "eliminate" anyone on your turf that is an "other".

And please do not romanticize the Native Americans, they are numerous seperate ethnic groups who often fought, conquered, and genocided each other. In my area in the span of only 250 years lived first the Cheyenne, then the Ojibwe, and then the Yankton Sioux.

Originally Posted by Ksim

How do you know if nations and religions don't make people happy? It depends ultimately on the society in question. That maybe your opinion yet I see it from a different perspective. Yes, people may learn from other cultures and enjoy them but it does not mean they are willing to give up on their traditional identities. I've had Iranian friends who have told me that whilst there are things they do enjoy in the West, they could never abandon their native Iran as the culture there is something very special to them. Iran is "home" to them and it makes them feel happy to be there. Yes, they want to offer more liberties but at the same time, they do not wish to abandon their Shia Islamic traditions or their native culture. It gives them a sense of identity and pride which there is nothing wrong with.

Same with my Jewish friends. They like being Jews, they like attending the synagogue, they like to go to Israel because it has a special connection to them. They wish no one any ill yet they identify with being Jews and it makes them happy. Even the Millennials too, I'd like to add.

The truth is - people are travelling more then ever and experiencing new cultures and ways of doing things. Yet "home" will always be home to them. Once again, if it makes them happy, then that is a good thing and should be something to be celebrated. There is nothing wrong in talking to people from other cultures and learning from them. Yet to call nationalism and religion meaningless when it gives people a meaning to their lives is not true.

There needs to be a liberalism and a conservatism - a balance. One should not rule over the other. Instead they should co-exist. The new and the old can co-exist peacefully and provide many wonderful opportunities. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare one supreme over the other. We are all God's children yet He made us in many diverse ways and we should celebrate this.

Let the nations and religions remain and lets live together in peace. Thats my fundamental belief and I'm sticking to it.

Nothing wrong with your last sentence! I understand your view and don't want to tell other people that they should not find meaning in their "native" culture or ancestry. It is not meaningless to me either, but it's not my "identity." And I don't think such an idea is going to hold up much longer in a globalizing society. Nor do I think people will find it so meaningful that it becomes a basis for politics, war, and resistance to immigration. That is already a minority view and it will get more so. Liberalism should win over conservatism; otherwise there's no progress. But a balance is good, in the sense that new liberal ideas may not work, so a conservative's caution can be valuable at times in regard to the untested and impractical.

I agree with this. But let us not try to enforce values onto other's. Oppression will disappear, I agree. But remember - proclaiming sovereignty of one ideology over another is also oppression. I have been oppressed for my views by the liberal politically correct society I live in just because I want to preserve all nations, including my own. That is not freedom of debate or thought but another form of oppression. Let us hope the totalitarian PC culture dies with all oppression.

Have people tried to silence you when you express nationalist views and such? I don't agree with that, and your nationalist views will not be silenced here. Disagreed with; you bet! But others will agree.

We have always been part of one world. We just have the ability to access it more easily then ever before. Yet we maybe one world but we are of many houses. I think you will find the vast majority of people, even the young, feel more of a connection to their own ethnic, tribal and religious identities, even the Arab Spring protesters. Yes, they may want new ideas but it does not mean they wish to destroy the old. I like to think of it as Meiji Era Japan. Japan adopted Western ideas and technology yet at the same time retained their age old ethnic and cultural system. Even to this day it still remains in place with Japan producing its ever infamous anime cartoons to broadcast its culture to the world. Yet this comes from their age old traditions that they still wish to maintain to this day. Nothing wrong in that. Ask anyone from Japan though if they want to become a multi-ethnic society like Britain, even their Millennials and they would recoil in horror.

We can accept new ideas but it does not mean we have to abandon the old. Like I said previously, its about the balance and what makes people happy.

I agree, except for your statement about recoiling in horror. Japanese may do so at first, as some such as yourself may be doing in Europe now. But it will happen; everywhere will be multi-ethnic. But preserving old traditions can still happen. In fact, it's the moral duty of everyone to respect and preserve these, and not act like the Islamic State/Taliban genocidal militants.

Actually when it comes to dictators imposing old ideas in order to remain in power, I only really see that in North Korea. Otherwise most countries with more authoritian governments actually have embraced modernization. Iran is a very post-modern society when it comes to technology. They can even get Western imports. Syria under Assad actually was making progress towards democracy and its economy was actually growing with Western fast food chains setting up residence in the nation. The nation was even embracing the internet and had a fast growing hi-tech service economy. Colonel Qadhafi had turned Libya into a very prosperous state. Yet U.S backed extremists destroyed all of this I am afraid to say.

Look Colonel Qadhafi was no angel neither is Bashar al-Assad. Yet when it comes down to it, both countries actually needed a strong man due to the nature of the population and its demographic profile. You had too many divisions between different ethnic groups in order for a full blown transition to liberal democracy to successfully work over night. Yet eventually both Libya and Syria would have slowly modernised and liberalised as time went on. I tend to view it as the liberalisation of the old absolute monarchies in Europe. It would have taken a while but eventually the transition would have been smoother and less bloodier then it is now.

As for ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Boka Horam, they are just extremist groups and are no better then the IRA or Christian extremists. Heck there are even environmental extremists and left wing anarchists. Violence is violence and is wrong no matter what. It doesn't mean this has anything to do with tradition. Even an animal rights extremist can turn violent.

Assad's Syria was making no progress to democracy, and tech innovation makes no difference in itself. Assad rejected all reforms, and when his people marched in the streets, he shot them down, destroyed their cities and chased them out of his country. Qaddafi was about to massacre the people who were protesting against his cruel dictatorship. There was no progress in either. There was no reason for either one to be in power. To say violence isn't needed, but then to say it's OK for a dictator to use it but not the people, I disagree with. The Arab Spring rebels rose up against them non-violently, and our help is a good thing. We should have followed up in Libya and helped them establish order, since there was no law and order under Qaddafi; only gangland rule. No, sometimes the people have to rise up for freedom if they want any; Syria was still no better (and in fact worse) than it had been 5000 years ago. There's no progress unless the people make it happen. Non-violence is better, but that's what the Syrians practiced, and the Libyans and Egyptians too. But when you are rolled over by tanks, a free peoples' army is the only answer. There will be no peace in Syria until their evil genocidal monster is chased away--- and preferably killed in the most cruel way possible. And no-one should call me to task for saying such a thing.

Actually this is something I came to the conclusion a while ago. It is rather unfair is it not for the Western world to have more prosperity compared to the other areas of the globe. I can see why the Arab immigrants would want to come to European lands. Yet at the same time, the problem lies with the United States. Had you left the secular dictators in power, eventually life would have improved for the Arabs and there would be no need for mass migration and civil wars. Do you think the Arab Spring meticulously appeared out of nowhere? Heck no - it was supported by good ol George Soros and his "colour revolutions" brigade. I know of Syrians who have said that whilst the Assads in particular stomped down on dissent quite harshly, they also kept the peace and life actually wasn't that bad. Now all they know is war and suffering. The vast majority of Syrians actually supported the Assads because they knew if the Assads fell from power, then the whole country would turn into anarchy. I guess they were right with that after all. Point is, it was American imperialist meddling that has caused the loss of lives in the Mid East and is causing major problems for European countries in the long run.

You know what I think? It should be up to you Americans to rehouse and re home these refugees until they can return home safely. Its your nation's fault for all this mess and it should be your country that takes care of these people, not a cash strapped Europe. Your mess, you clean it up. Really we should process these people and safely ship them to U.S shores.

Also if we keep having mass waves of people from Islamic nations into Europe, eventually we could end up with a potential civil war ourselves which means more people that die. All for U.S imperialistic ambitions. Sorry but asking Europe to clean up after you is purely unfair.

You've made quite a leap there. The Arab Spring was not caused by George Soros and the United States. You need to give credit to the people there for realizing what you said in your first sentence. That's all this is about. And saying that the Syrians want Assad is a flagrant lie. Adding on fantasies about the USA causing all this, just fulfills some need of yours, and has no relation to the facts at all. The USA has meddled in the Middle East, yes, but you can't put the Arab Spring and everything else happening there at Uncle Sam's doorstep. Europe has meddled more in the Middle East than the USA historically, so on that basis I can place the mess on your shoulders too and ask you to clean it up. Immigration to Europe from the Middle East is as natural as immigration from Latin America to the USA, and we are just going to have to get used to it. Far from ignoring these third world places, as you seem to propose, we will need to help them when they ask, and yes, leave them alone and allow them to unfold their freedom, rather than taking advantage of them for our own needs (such as starting wars or propping up dictators there to secure our oil supplies). And remember my principle; immigration happens because people want a better life than is possible where they live. Help and allow them to have better lives where they live, and they won't immigrate. That's much better than arousing resentments and erecting walls and thus fomenting hatreds.

I wasn't actually referring to racist parties. I was actually talking about many different nationalist movements including the civic nationalists. Nationalism and identity is growing amongst the Millennials - it dosen't have to be Neo-Nazi extremism you know? Like I mentioned with the Scottish nationalists, the Welsh nationalists, the Basque nationalists, etc, etc.

But that's where it leads; to fascism and racist politics.

But it is America responsible for Europe's rising nationalism. Your nation had it in its eyes to try and turn Europe into another "United States" along with the promotion of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. Personally I doubt we will see another Hitler but I hold you Americans personally responsible for the fate of Europe. You know, Europeans are not racist in general but when you flood their homelands with many different peoples and tell them "it is for their own good, they need it, its great", then obviously racism is going to increase.

You Americans should stay out of Europe and sort out your own problems. You should not tell us what to do.

Look I don't hate Americans in general. Many of my friends are Americans and actually agree with me. Yet at the same time, I do not like Americans telling us Europeans how to govern our own countries and societies. We belong here, this is our homeland and has been for thousands of years. We are not immigrants like you Americans. Most of us even come from towns and villages and cities that our ancestors have lived in for millennia. Perhaps an American cannot appreciate it but for a European who sees this radically changed in a blink of an eye, it can be extremely depressing. All of that history, gone. A shame, you know? A crying shame.

Now I know what the native Americans feel like, heh.

You lost me there too, Tsim. We didn't flood your homeland, and we certainly didn't force you to form a union. We can't determine your fate. We can only help when we are asked to, and in the way we are asked to. Odin's point is correct; we are all immigrants everywhere, and we are all mixtures of people who have moved around a lot. "Thousands of years" is off the mark. In the Dark Ages, Europe was a scene of constant migration. Just one thousand years; maybe, but with exceptions even so.

I'm actually not a racist person. I became a nationalist because I felt envious of my friends from other countries feel proud to have a homeland to go back to. It made them happy, you know? I felt I had no identity, no home compared to them. It made me depressed. Then I came to realise that every group needs a place to call home and that made me a global nationalist. As I explained in my previous post, I support all races and cultures to have their own homelands. Heck, I'd love to even see the native Americans get a few states entirely for themselves to govern and live as they see fit. Not those ridiculous reservations they have now.

Probably a generational trait. Civic generations need to feel part of a "civic" group. Prophets like me, who also felt they "had no identity," looked within and to what we love and found a very rich self-identity, and a spiritual home, with no need to rely on a "group." That's just conformity, and Boomers and Xers tend to be non-conformists. I feel sufficient enough in myself that I don't need to join a group to find my "identity." If I do feel connected to a group, it's to various groups of like-minded and like-feeling folk. And to God, the Earth, and All One People.

Your expressed ideal reminds me of Wilson's 14 points, and even more of 19th century liberal romantic nationalism (which led to the world wars). It seems a throwback to me.

Hey, Odin.

I was wondering about this statement you made:

Originally Posted by Odin

We tried minding out own business after the first world war, the result was Hitler.

Are you familiar with the Dawes/Young Plan(s)?


Prince

Ksim,

Thank you for your compliments mate. Much appreciated. To be honest I am glad to have discussions with the liberals on here because at the end of the day, it does provide food for thought and I believe all of us can learn something new from one another in order to better improve the times that we all live in. Just because I am a nationalist, it dosen't mean I am against liberals in general. I just ask them to kindly respect my beliefs and I will do the same.

I'm all for debate, that's why we're here, just pointing out that, on the broad scale, the highlighted portion is just not going to happen. They (both the posters here and the bit you were complaining about America more broadly) are out to convert you, by force if need be. As Odin points out, they are all essentially assimilated Yankee Puritans, and as such their beliefs do not accept borders or traditions. See here:

What are these conservative values?

Romanticizing thrift for labor while a 20% tax on billionaires is considered theft? (Obama's a commie!)

Rejection of science and suspicion of all education as a liberal conspiracy? (Hint: education IS a liberation conspiracy)

Racism, misogyny, and homophobia?

Really though. Tell me about some modern conservative values that aren't hate-based and socially destructive.

With all due respect this comes across to me as a bit of psychological projection onto and the scapegoating of the US, here. When the mentality is that "Only ethnic Germans are real Germans" it leads to the attitude that ethnic minorities, like Jews, can never be naturalized and assimilated into being "real Germans". It is an attitude that leads directly to atrocities, it lead to the Holocaust. I remember as a child seeing news on the TV about the horrors going on in the former Yugoslavia exactly because of this attitude. Bosnians and Albanians getting massacred because the Serbs did not want other people in "their land".

We tried minding out own business after the first world war, the result was Hitler.

o be quite frank, the reason you are having trouble with immigrants is because you simply suck at assimilating them into the local cultures. This leaves the 2nd generation alienated and thus a convenient target for recruitment by fanatical loonies, thus the stories of teenagers trying to join ISIS.

Keeping your traditions or borders or what have you is simply not an option, because <Hitler>.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey, Odin.

I was wondering about this statement you made:



Are you familiar with the Dawes/Young Plan(s)?


Prince

Yes, but that was more the exception, not the rule. the US was unwilling to full-heartedly take up hegemonic power that it needed to in the interbellum years, the result was a geopolitical clusterfuck.

The main reason Ike ran as a Republican was that he was terrified that the Republicans would nominate an isolationist like Bob Taft and that such a person as president would get rid of NATO, pull out of the UN, and repeat the mistakes of the interwar years.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I'm all for debate, that's why we're here, just pointing out that, on the broad scale, the highlighted portion is just not going to happen. They (both the posters here and the bit you were complaining about America more broadly) are out to convert you, by force if need be. As Odin points out, they are all essentially assimilated Yankee Puritans, and as such their beliefs do not accept borders or traditions. See here:

Keeping your traditions or borders or what have you is simply not an option, because <Hitler>.

My argument to people talking about peoples having a right to "preserve their heiritage/culture/nationhood" is that it leads to a strict cultural relativism that I cannot accept. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered normal and those people think that people fighting to end the practice are "threatening their cultural traditions" and thus their distinct identity. I find ANY hunting of whales and dolphins to be completely immoral and wrong because of how intelligent they are, but the Inuit, Icelanders, and Japanese insist that they must be allowed to hunt them as part of their "culture".

Originally Posted by Odin

Yes, but that was more the exception, not the rule. the US was unwilling to full-heartedly take up hegemonic power that it needed to in the interbellum years, the result was a geopolitical clusterfuck.

The main reason Ike ran as a Republican was that he was terrified that the Republicans would nominate an isolationist like Bob Taft and that such a person as president would get rid of NATO, pull out of the UN, and repeat the mistakes of the interwar years.

Taylor, I have no idea how to even begin to respond to this.


Prince

PS: If you don't mind, just forget I brought it up.

But Ksim:

The nations of Europe, France and Britain especially, still have a colonial past to atone for. How is mass immigration by Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans to Europe so much worse than British treatment of Indians, Belgian treatment of Zaire, or French treatment of Algeria? Didn't the Algerians also have a right to a homeland revoked by the French? Eye for an eye, no? While I recognize the pitfalls of multiculturalism and identity politics, I wholeheartedly cosmopolitanism. I think there's a fine line between the two. I sincerely doubt the French are complaining about expats from the US, Canada, or even Argentina. It's racism plain and simple. What nationalists see as the disappearance of their "homelands" I view as an inevitable result of colonialism.

Originally Posted by Remy Renault

But Ksim:

The nations of Europe, France and Britain especially, still have a colonial past to atone for. How is mass immigration by Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans to Europe so much worse than British treatment of Indians, Belgian treatment of Zaire, or French treatment of Algeria?

Good point.
Karma's a bitch, assholes!

(White Americans will have to face their own Karma as the brown folks gradually outnumber them here.)

But ... I'm not so sure it's all about racism. I have a white American friend living in England and she runs into prejudice a lot.

Originally Posted by Odin

My argument to people talking about peoples having a right to "preserve their heiritage/culture/nationhood" is that it leads to a strict cultural relativism that I cannot accept. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered normal and those people think that people fighting to end the practice are "threatening their cultural traditions" and thus their distinct identity. I find ANY hunting of whales and dolphins to be completely immoral and wrong because of how intelligent they are, but the Inuit, Icelanders, and Japanese insist that they must be allowed to hunt them as part of their "culture".

Experienced activists will tell you that those practices are most effectively changed by people in those countries who want to change their own culture.

I have a lot to reply to so I'll post a bit, have a break then get back to it. I feel a little bit like a lone samurai but ah well, what can you do.

I'm all for debate, that's why we're here, just pointing out that, on the broad scale, the highlighted portion is just not going to happen. They (both the posters here and the bit you were complaining about America more broadly) are out to convert you, by force if need be. As Odin points out, they are all essentially assimilated Yankee Puritans, and as such their beliefs do not accept borders or traditions. See here:

I just want to say thanks Jordan for the support you have shown to me during this debate. It is refreshing to find someone that does take more of an open mind on these matters. But that said, both Eric and Odin have been polite and accommodating during the discussions and I must thank them too. I've been posting on forums for too many years now and I can tell you, mention you have nationalistic views and you can literally be bullied off a forum by left wing liberals who cannot tolerate any other view point apart from their own. Yet at least both Eric and Odin have been willing to debate this in a gentlemanly manner so it makes it a pleasure to keep on coming back for another 'round' so to speak.

Still interesting point you make about the 'Blue Yankee Puritans'. I tend to find this is mainly the case when it comes to Americans on a more liberal spectrum. They believe in interfering in global affairs whenever possible in order to impose their own world view. Yet when it comes to the 'Red Conservatives', I tend to find this group not only the ones that are sympathetic to nationalist ideas when it comes to Europeans but also the only group that wants the U.S to pull out from its international duties on the world stage and adopt a more isolationist stance. Most in this group tend to follow the Ron Paul ideas of non-interventionism, which I can agree with.

That said, they cannot convert me because as the old saying goes, "you cannot teach an old dog new tricks." Still let the debate continue as I am having fun.

Keeping your traditions or borders or what have you is simply not an option, because <Hitler>.

It is unfortunately a very popular misconception that the liberal left have when it comes to nationalism. Yet they also forget that many of the heroic characters they do praise throughout history such as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and even Ho Chi Minh were also nationalists. All three men wanted their own people to not only just have a homeland but the right to run their own affairs. Aside from Uncle Ho, both Nelson and Mahatma engaged in a more peaceful struggle against oppression. Yet their own values were just the same as mine.

What we have to remember is that Adolf Hitler was no nationalist but actually was a Germanic Imperialist. The two concepts of both nationalism and imperialism are two different ideologies. Nationalists believe in the right to run their own homelands and be left alone to their own traditions. Imperialists believe in expanding their own racial, cultural, economic and other values at whatever cost is necessary. Hitler was a racial imperialist but the liberals in America tend to be of the more cultural flavour. Imperialism is still imperialism and it is wrong.

The nations of Europe, France and Britain especially, still have a colonial past to atone for. How is mass immigration by Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans to Europe so much worse than British treatment of Indians, Belgian treatment of Zaire, or French treatment of Algeria? Didn't the Algerians also have a right to a homeland revoked by the French? Eye for an eye, no? While I recognize the pitfalls of multiculturalism and identity politics, I wholeheartedly cosmopolitanism. I think there's a fine line between the two. I sincerely doubt the French are complaining about expats from the US, Canada, or even Argentina. It's racism plain and simple. What nationalists see as the disappearance of their "homelands" I view as an inevitable result of colonialism.

Good point.
Karma's a bitch, assholes!

(White Americans will have to face their own Karma as the brown folks gradually outnumber them here.)

But ... I'm not so sure it's all about racism. I have a white American friend living in England and she runs into prejudice a lot.

Actually I do agree with you. The fault of mass immigration is actually karma paying us back. Had we left them alone, they probably would have left us alone. Hence it is our own fault for getting it into our heads the idea of "the white man's burden" and having to bring "civilisation" to the world. Yet this is essentially what America is also doing with its promotion of what I term "American Globalisation". Posters on here advocate a similar mindset, particularly Odin. It is up to America to bring liberal and global ideas to the world less it not be enlightened. Very, very similar mindset and concepts to 19th century European colonialism.

That said, the sins of the fathers may haunt the children but the grandchildren have played no role in the past. It is time to move on. Yes, Europe must accept its past responsibilities but on the other hand, filling its own homelands up with various peoples throughout the world is also not a way to right a wrong. This itself will only bring on future genocide against the native Europeans and probably itself lead to a civil war. The Europeans themselves may have adopted an "end of history" mentality but people from elsewhere around the world have not.

When you have a population used to peace vs a population used to conflict, the population that has fought war will always devour the peaceful population as war and survival is all they know. It is not their fault of course but they know nothing else and having to try and re-educate a large mass migration of such people takes a long, long time. If such people keep on coming and coming in vast numbers on a yearly basis, then it becomes harder to help them change their ways and as a result, you will end up carrying on the conflict they were escaping from into the new homeland.

I do think Europe is paying for its past sins but on the other hand, Europeans too will eventually become more nationalistic and fight for their homelands at some point just like the Algerians, the Vietnamese, the Congolese and other oppressed groups did throughout history. A white man should not hold the whip over the black man and the black man should not hold the whip over the white man.

My argument to people talking about peoples having a right to "preserve their heiritage/culture/nationhood" is that it leads to a strict cultural relativism that I cannot accept. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered normal and those people think that people fighting to end the practice are "threatening their cultural traditions" and thus their distinct identity. I find ANY hunting of whales and dolphins to be completely immoral and wrong because of how intelligent they are, but the Inuit, Icelanders, and Japanese insist that they must be allowed to hunt them as part of their "culture"

But it is not our right to interfere. That is their culture and their traditions. It is up to them to have their own reformation of ideas. Just because you find it immoral does not mean they do. We can offer them new suggestions but ultimately it is for them to decide what to do in the long run. Forcing them to take on our ideas is just another form of imperialism which I also find abhorrent. Of course, I don't like hunting whales and dolphins just like many others yet I'm not going to tell them what to do as it is not my place. Same with female genital mutilation. Let them sort it out, its not our place to dictate to them what is right and wrong about their culture.

Eventually the Islamic and even the oriental world will probably repent and have a revelation on how best to enlighten their own cultures and societies. Until then, we should just leave them be and focus on our own culture. Fair is fair.

Yes! Let them secede, and we can have multi-nations!

I don't get this. On the one hand you want a global world where everyone is pretty much the same yet on the other hand, you want multi-nations in America? This is pretty much the concept I have been arguing about. Let people have multi-nations if it makes them happy but one big global world of the same ideological mindset is not a good thing. We are not robots - we all have different needs and emotions and if it makes us better to be separated, then let it be.

That said though I will give you credit Eric because you are at least willing to let people live apart from you if they don't agree with your ideals. Some liberals would heavily disagree with this and take up a "we must stamp anything out" attitude they do not like.

Sorta like Tom Lehrer, we liberals believe in loving one another, not hating one another, but we know there are people who hate, and we HATE people like that!

You know, I have met very few liberals in my life time that really are "peace loving" I find the ones over here in the UK to be just as bad, if not worse then the most extreme conservatives. They do not tolerate any other idea apart from their own and will literally attack anyone (even violently) who disagrees with this. Look at all the ANTIFA activists that attack conservative and national party events throughout Europe and America. It isn't tolerance or peace - its just bullying and is in no way good for freedom of speech.

Going for a break now. Get back to the rest of this later.