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