>Nationalism >Individualism Lol, pick one

>/pol/
>/lit/
You first phammy

>>9096354
Just protecting your borders and enforcing immigration laws now counts as nationalism, so yeah you can pick two.

File: IMG_2556.jpg (109KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 900x750px

Human beings are Holons, or that which is simultaneously part and whole. For the individual to thrive, the collective must thrive as well.

The nation is made up of individuals. Therefore, you can pick both. It just means you don't value individuals who aren't part of the nation.

>>9096369
Enforcing national borders is inherently collectivist.

>>9096354
It's called a synecdoche, loser.

>>9096384
Is it collectivist to wish for a nation that provides me with most individual freedom?
Open borders world is the one where my safety and financial security would be constantly at risk

File: 1449769761317.png (273KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 450x450px

>>9096354
Nationalism serves my own interests for the time being, hence I allow it to exist. I commit to nationalism out of egoism and not some higher ideal. If it should go against my interests, I shall rid myself of it.

>>9096354
Me > my family and friends > my countrymen > everyone else

>>9096384
You can only enforce individual rights in a governed state and a state requires sovereign borders to function. If you are surrounded by collectivists, then you need to take collectivist counter-measures.

>>9096404

Listen to my subject.

>>9096398
Yes, that is a collectivist demand, considering the fact that someone else is paying for your security, a lot of others that probably really don't care if you're safe or not

https://dissentingsociologist.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/some-desultory-remarks-on-the-concept-of-universal-person/

File: IMG_2361.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>9096383
>It just means you don't value individuals who aren't a part of the nation.
Then you are not an individualist.

>>9096354
Read Hegel you dip

>>9096451
You can't be a national individualist?

>>9096434
>if I reference Kant, Plato and Nietzsche enough maybe people won't find out that I'm a literal neo-nazi

>>9096527
OP here
Lol, I have read Hegel and I don't agree with him on a lot of things.

neolibs btfo

File: IMG_2363.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>9096527
This is muh copy of the Phenomenology of Spirit from my book collection. Hegel was spooked.

File: 1483324496821.jpg (379KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1000x500px

>>9096384
I want a nation of libertarians and I want all non-libertarians to be excluded

Authoritarians don't deserve civilized society. They are all hypocrites who want liberty for themselves but won't afford the same to their neighbor.

>>9096591
Stop projecting faggot.

>>9096591
>If you disagree with me you are a nazi, or sometimes actually Hitler reborn.

>>9096617
Nice collection.

>>9096623
>liberty for all except people I don't like.

Hoppe is the definition of a crypto-fascist. His system can at best lead to a Pinochean dictatorship.

>>9096627
>>9096635
>unironically defending the cancer of "white identitarianism"

File: 1483324475538.jpg (389KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1000x500px

>>9096655
It's liberty for all but you lose that liberty when you actively conspire to destroy the liberty of others

>>9096451
>Then you are not an individualist.
National Individualist, Patriotic Patriot

>>9096675
Go back to your containment thread on /pol/.

>>9096354
I can get behind this >>9096369 kind of nationalism but anything revolving around
>muh national pride
>muh heritage
>preserving muh national culture (not just the aspects of one's culture held to be objectively superior, but implying that preserving one's existing culture is good in itself by default)
is spooky as hell and anti-individualistic.

>>9096354
i pick nationalism


wow that was hard

File: 273743.jpg (23KB, 720x795px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 720x795px

>21st century
>nation state at all

wew lad

>>9096354
It's perfectly conceivable to pick both so long as at least one of those conforms to your special snowflake not-at-all-what-it-means definition.
>>9096369
Which I guess this guy is doing.

>>9096740
Are those pics in the wrong order? It doesn't make much sense.

File: 1483324516077.jpg (389KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1000x500px

>>9096708
>anarcho-capitalism is now /pol/

Why is the left so intolerant?

>>9096747
>Are those pics in the wrong order? It doesn't make much sense

It doesnt make sense.
How, shoe me how it doesnt make sense

File: images.jpg (5KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x200px

>Believing in enforcing gender roles and expression on everyone
>Calling yourself an individualist

>>9096759
>anarcho-capitalism
A crackt pipe dream. Anarchy is not feasible, well I mean, would an anarcho capitalist state/area say to the world "We dont believe in any laws!!", and then expect the unitededs of the world to not conquer them?

>>9096759
>anarcho-capitalism is now /pol/
Well yeah. When was it not?
>Why is the left so intolerant?
And so are you, if you think the leftyfaggots on /lit/ are going to get triggered by being called "intolerant".
>>9096766
It is grammatically awkward. And at first glance contradictory. While the other way around flows much better.

File: 1486444789099.jpg (141KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x500px

>>9096776
>would an anarcho capitalist state/area say to the world "We dont believe in any laws!!"

You don't understand anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists believe in the natural law. We possess natural rights to life, liberty and property. Self-ownership is fundamental.

An-caps would bind together to defend themselves from all those foreign threats who oppose private property. (and we would do so more efficiently than you communist technocrats and your shitty central planning)

File: 1483056026401.jpg (153KB, 1151x523px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1151x523px

mad?

>>9096759
Don't pretend like you didn't save these images from /libtard/ general threads on /pol/ you fucking memer.

>>9096747
Yeah
From what I gather (from Anime) Japanese sentence structure seems reversed w/r/t English. So it's probably the translators fault for being too autistic.

>live in ancap and
>not the roads
>not the police
>not the army
No, the lack of a patent system makes research and marketing fucking stupid so the economy breaks.

>>9096825
what

>>9096789
>Anarcho-capitalists believe in the natural law. We possess natural rights to life, liberty and property.
this is the most embarrassing thing ive ever read.

>>9096854
Then I guess you haven't read much since you haven't read any Enlightenment texts on the nature of government

Read Locke and stop embarrassing yourself

>>9096404
Couldn't have said it better.

I didn't become a cultural nationalist until I found out the truth about Muslims and their barbarism.

File: Cx2FiRg.png (269KB, 789x470px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 789x470px

>>9096825
read

https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

>produce good that isn't scarce
>lobby the government to use violence against people to exclude them from accessing your non-scarce good therefore giving you an artificial monopoly

i thought you leftists hated monopolies?

>>9096893
>you leftists
Pleb.

File: 1469133058642.png (304KB, 880x432px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 880x432px

>>9096899
argument?

>>9096910
That leftists are not a homogenous blob, to the point that they do not exist.

>Implying that people on the left support governments pandering to big business.
>Implying that private powers won't always try to use the state to manipulate the economy and get what they want.
>Implying that private companies won't just use their massive financial power to create a new state that is even more authoritarian and unaccountable than the existing state, with a private army, police force and judicial system.

>>9096893
How is it any more "artificial" than protection of non-intellectual property.

>>9096875
I've read Locke.
He's an embarrassment
the enlightenment is an embarrassment

Make one cogent argument for the mere existence of "natural rights"

>>9096789
>Implying that private property existed in nature before human beings existed.

>>9096938
this
at least anarcho-communism makes sense

>muh first person to build a fence around precisely what he needed for himself!

>>9096915
>implying an actual socialist utopia would do anything
It'd literally just be you working a bit less and making a bit more. That's not a huge change. Like what do you think life is like for the rich? Fuck, who do you think it is that writes all that gloomy anti-materialist philosophy?

You're not gonna do shit with a utopia. You have to look inside yourself.
>>9096789
>natural
>law
Unless you are Spinoza, you do not know what one or both of these words mean.

>>9096789
>an-caps would bind together
you realize this would effectively become a representative government right?
calling a government a corporation or a union of individualists or whatever doesn't make it not a government

>>9096963
Same goes for anarcho-commies with their bullshit "no rulers doesn't mean no rules" though.

>>9096938
I mean animals do exert ownership over territory and objects, but nothing moral/philosophical obviously. It's just "I'm using this and if you touch it I'll fight you."

>>9096354
You say The Hunger Games, I say The Sot-Weed Factor
You say Twilight, I say The Recognitions
You say Divergent, I say The Magic Mountain
You say Harry Potter, I say In Search of Lost Time
You say Perks, I say Women & Men
You say John Green, I say shut the fuck up
You say Cassandra Clare, I scream Thomas Pynchon!!
You say Fifty Shades of Grey, I fucken punch you in the face

92% of teenagers have turned to YA and memes. If you are part of the 8% that still reads real literature, copy and paste this message to another 5 threads. DON'T LET THE SPIRIT OF /LIT/ DIE

File: 1484710349091.png (322KB, 740x804px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 740x804px

>>9096920
non-intellectual property isn't scarce and is excludable without using the power of the state

example: you can build a fence around your land

you cannot build a fence around an idea without using the government to kill people who use your idea

>>9096915
>Implying that people on the left support governments pandering to big business.

Yet the left constantly tries to raise taxes on small-medium business owners and put new regulations on their businesses which prevents them from competing with the billionaire multi-national corporations

>Implying that private powers won't always try to use the state to manipulate the economy and get what they want.
abolish the state

>>Implying that private companies won't just use their massive financial power to create a new state that is even more authoritarian and unaccountable than the existing state, with a private army, police force and judicial system.

Creating a state is a violation of the NAP and thus those of the covenant would band together to kill the state-formers so to protect their property rights

>>9096912
Sure they are. They all hate property rights.

>>9096938
not an argument

>>9096928
It's simple cause and effect

I plant seeds in the land and infuse the land with my labor thus I'm responsible for that farmland. Since I now possess the essence of responsibility of that farmland so do I possess the subset responsibility of the responsibility to choose what happens to it aka ownership. No one else possesses that "responsibility to choose" than I because they do not possess any set of responsibility for that farmland thus giving me the right to exclude others from utilizing that farmland.

>>9096962
not an argument

>>9096963
Each member of the covenant has full self-sovereignty. No other can dictate the rules of their private property or personhood. The covenant of defense would be purely voluntary and they could choose to not contribute to the defense whenever they'd like. They would choose to contribute to the defense of their private property naturally.

>>9096957
>anarcho-communism makes sense

>we should equally distribute our wealth
>but everyone has to do it voluntarily

lmao, good luck with that.

>>9096980
Yes it is sorry.

>>9096980
>you cannot build a fence around an idea without using the government to kill people who use your idea
wut if you used your private army

>>9096962
>implying an actual socialist utopia would do anything
Nice strawman you got there. I don't advocate for a socialist utopia, I advocate for minor government reforms like universal healthcare, public education and health/environmental regulation to minimize poverty and misery, and to make sure people aren't stuck drinking poisoned water. My policies are neither utopian nor socialist, nor are they even radical.

>>9096984
not an argument

>>9096985
this is a minor point of contention between libertarians that is largely unimportant in the overall scheme of things

the Rand's of the worlds would say that is fine although she would impose arbitrary limits on intellectual property while other libertarians think that property rights only exist because of scarcity of resources so they would say that's not ok

>>9096994
desu I was just using your post to make a point
>>9096998
Not him but you are wrong.

>>9097007
you are him since i had two parts of that reply where i said "not an argument" so i have no idea who the reply "yes it is sorry" is coming from

>>9097012
>i have no idea
yes

>>9096980
>abolish the state
I'm a Capitalist who advocates for markets, and you can't abolish the state without abolishing private ownership of the means of production. Private powers will never allow you to abolish the state, unless you abolish private power entirely.

>>9097019
thats cute but ultimately very shallow and pathetic

as well as not an argument

>>9096893
>leftists

I will never not be amazed at burger's insistence on confusing leftists with liberals.

File: madison.jpg (93KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1200x1200px

>>9097116
How can you call yourself a liberal when you hate private property and individual liberty?

Leftists have bastardized the term Liberal

>>9097052
Aw, did I hurt your feelings?
>>9097090
The criminal is in the utmost degree the State’s own crime.

>>9097136
>How can you call yourself a liberal when you hate private property and individual liberty?
He doesn't, that's the point you dongle.

>>9097142
You still haven't read

https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

>>9097146
What does that have to do with anything I said in my pretty brief post.

>>9097090
>Theft is wrong

Absolutely spooked.

>>9096983
im not an anarcho-communist by any means, but at least they're not dithering retards like ancaps.

also:
>should
>will

recognize the distinction dude, cause ur argument doesnt follow. read the literature- they at least posit a mechanism by which this process can occur.

You might want to live with certain individuals.

>>9097146
>mises.org
Look you might as well have just recommended marxists.org

I have the same respect for both of those sites.

>>9096980
>I plant seeds in the land and infuse the land with my labor thus I'm responsible for that farmland.
I've read it all, brother.

Please give me a concrete distinction between productive and unproductive labor, and then give me an account as to why all 'private property' should not be ceded to the individual who can make most efficient use of it. Good luck intellectually dealing with scarcity without resorting to the possibility of redistribution.

By the way, I once planted fruit trees in a public park. Do you know how my efforts were referred to? As Community Service.

>>9097279
>marxists.org
you know they post full unedited texts of almost every major left-wing author? It's not just some site for shitty opinion pieces.

>>9097136
>>9097116
>Leftist
First of all, it's important to define what you mean by leftist. When you say leftist, are you referring to center-left Bernie Sanders types who want higher taxes and government programs, or are you referring to the far-left such as anarcho-communists and Marxist-Leninists who want to abolish private property and markets entirely? It is highly misleading to use the term leftist to refer to both the center-left and the far-left, because the two groups have very little in common in terms of their vision of society, the types of action they advocate for, and the ideas they are trying to implement. In modern times, the word liberal has become synonymous with center-left or progressive. The center-left are liberals, because many of the classical liberals did not actually advocate for laissez faire. If you read Thomas Paine or Freidrich Hayek, both liberal thinkers believed that their was a role for the state in intervening in the economy. A liberal broadly speaking, supports representative democracy, market economies and a government that protects property rights and individual freedom. The center-left fits this definition of liberal because progressives don't advocate for the abolition of representative democracy, private property or the market economy. A belief in taxation, welfare programs and government regulation isn't incompatible with liberalism or market economies, because the policies are implemented within the context of a liberal market system. The far-left on the other hand, consciously knows that they are not liberals. If you met any actual members of the far-left, they will openly talk about how much hey hate the center-left. The far-left doesn't believe in participating in electoral politics or in creating welfare programs, nor do they want higher taxes. The far-left wants to entirely abolish money itself, overthrow the existing state, and abolish private ownership of the means of production in favor of worker control of production. So when you use the term leftist, be careful that you are not grouping the center-left and the far-left in the same camp, because they are very two distinct groups.

>>9096980
http://pastebin.com/7zn44SVE

Locke btfo

>>9096354
What if nationalism is in my self-interest? What if I genuinely love the idea of nationalism and I want society to be structured in this way?

You can be both an individualist and nationalist, if anything you can also be an individualist and an altruist. You just have to genuinely want to be altruistic.

>>9096404
Exactly this.

Muzzies out.

>>9097337
>What if nationalism is in my self-interest?
What if the sky is a big blue elephant?

Nationalism is too abstract and intellectual for what you're describing.

>>9097384
Are you sure? What if I aesthetically like the idea of living in a nationalist country? What if I genuinely like the habits and quirks of my nation and I want people to follow them, and be proud of their traditionalism?
Self-interest is way more than mere sensual pleasures.

>>9097296
>you know they post full unedited texts of almost every major left-wing author?

>completely butchering the aggregate supply function at the end of chapter 4 of Keynes' General Theory
>unedited

>>9097417
>>9097384

It's more than sensual pleasures, but this sounds like you trying to keep hold of your nationalism despite agreeing with much of Stirner.

>>9097430
I don't have to agree with Stirner, and had you read him you would already know that he's the first one to admit the uniqueness of every single human being. A genuine appreciation for nationalism is competely compatible with his philosophy, as long as you're able to detatch yourself from every sort of spook attached to the ideology.

>>9097443
The argument here is whether that's possible, anon. Given the large amount of socialist stirnerites I don't think there's any who would disagree that being an egoist and holding political views is theoretically possible, just that it's practically impossible.

>>9097453
Not in my case. I'm Italian and I truly love our traditional heritage: everything old I can see when walking down the streets is magnificent, everything new is bland and vulgar.
In my ideal world we would still follow our classical aesthetical standards for every aspect of society, and to do so nationalism is necessary, since it's inherently bound to what I want to promote in this society.

Nationalism is directly in my self-interest. As you can see, it's not practically impossible.

>>9097490
No faggot what you want is a specific aesthetic.

That's not nationalism. Also good taste.

File: 14343.png (4KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 205x246px

>>9097497
The best way to promote that aesthetic is nationalism, since it's the only modern line of thought that promotes classicism. The best way to promote nationalism it is to be a nationalist myself, or at least to behave like one.
Of course I don't believe in its central values, nor I'm linking them to any metaphysical foundation, yet the enactment of those values creates a results that coincides with my ideal world.

>tfw in a truly ideal world people would just reject everything that is either aesthetically worthless and uninteresting in the first place
>tfw no one feels true disgust when seeing trendy clothing stores in historic centres
>tfw humanity won't ever ascend

>>9097514
It's not at all the only modern line of thought. Plus it brings a whole host of other things, namely -- nationalism. And that is certainly something other than yourself.

And I doubt the enactment of those values truly coincides with your ideal world. Much more likely they coincide with what you think should be your ideal world. Although it's technically possible it's your actual ideal world.

Also "aesthetically worthless" is spooked. Uninteresting isn't.

And trendy clothing stores in historic centres are God-tier. I bet you don't even water bottles.

>>9097514
>The best way to promote that aesthetic is nationalism, since it's the only modern line of thought that promotes classicism.
Since nationalism is despised by so many, wouldn't it be more effective to just promote the kind of aesthetics you want without tying to nationalism?

>>9097568
There are no worthwhile aesthetics that include shitskins.

File: Dravidian.jpg (3MB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2592x1728px

>>9097642
And I thought you had good taste.

>>9097663
Looks too busy desu.

>>9096663
>black identitarianism is OK
>hispanic identitarianism is OK
>white identitarianism is NAZIS AAAAAHH

>>9096388
Oh, five dollar words on /lit/. I've seen Bigfoot.

File: irohafags.gif (2MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x320px

>>9096404
Oh, you.

File: 1463410139886.jpg (16KB, 321x325px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 321x325px

>>9098713

White is a made-up blanket term for the ethnicities that are normal and thus ignored. Irish people weren't white when it was okay to fuck with them, and art from the time depicts Irish people the same way modern racist art depicts black people.

Identifying with whiteness is identifying with the cultural and state apparatus that determine who it's okay to fuck on at any given historical moment.

A white identitarian anarchist is a retard in multiple directions, as is a white identitarian nationalist.

In a world of real ethnocentric nation states there would be no whiteness. A Frenchman is not a Welshman is not a Dane is not a German.

People cling to whiteness out of the realization that they're crackers with no culture and history and ironically they're clinging to the thing that destroyed their culture and history.

>>9097663
That wasn't me, I am not that low-hanging.

>>9099365
>In a world of real ethnocentric nation states there would be no whiteness.

Which is why in most of Europe we don't really use that word.
But in places like the US, 'white' makes sense as a category.

>>9099365
>White is a made-up blanket term for the ethnicities
Same goes for black and hispanic, what's your point?

> that are normal and thus ignored.
They are the majority in most western nations, but not everywhere on the planet. And black people make up 14% of the US population, their culture is 'normal' too. Normal is a meaningless term, why can't you celebrate something that is normal? Why can't you defend something that is normal, when people try to get rid of it?

>Identifying with whiteness is identifying with the cultural and state apparatus that determine who it's okay to fuck on at any given historical moment.
Western philosophy and culture are 'white'. If you celebrate democracy, liberalism, science, christianity and western education then you are celebrating white culture. If you disagree with this, then must also disagree with celebrating 'black' and 'hispanic' culture.

>A white identitarian anarchist is a retard in multiple directions, as is a white identitarian nationalist.
Why do you bring up these unrelated topics? We are talking about white identity.

>People cling to whiteness out of the realization that they're crackers with no culture and history
You just said the normal culture in western nation is white. How can these two things be true at the same time?

>>9099365
>term for the ethnicities that are normal and thus ignored
>you can ignore white culture because it is normal

wat

>>9099394
>Same goes for black and hispanic, what's your point?
True but that doesn't change anything; my point is that identifying with whiteness as an ethnicity is stupid.

>They are the majority in most western nations, but not everywhere on the planet.
I'm talking about America specifically, which is where the various European ethnic identities have been eroded away into a non-entity called "white"

>And black people make up 14% of the US population, their culture is 'normal' too.
If they were normal they'd be white. Black/Hispanic are similar blanket terms but they're by definition distinct from white. Id on't know what this has to do with anything I said though.

> why can't you celebrate something that is normal? Why can't you defend something that is normal, when people try to get rid of it?
Because >Normal is a meaningless term

Maybe I misspoke there. For one, when I said
>Identifying with whiteness is identifying with the cultural and state apparatus that determine who it's okay to fuck on at any given historical moment.
I forgot to say "i.e. Nazis." White identitarianism is inherently identifying with the system that has and continues to generate violence against designated Others, which is why people call you a Nazi.

What you are celebrating is the default. The absence of defining features. You're celebrating nothing.

>Western philosophy and culture are 'white'. If you celebrate democracy, liberalism, science, christianity and western education then you are celebrating white culture.

>democracy,
don't

>liberalism
don't

>science
Do, but science predates the establishment of whiteness as a replacement for ethnic/national identity

>christianity
I appreciate Christianity academically as a fundamental current of thought in the literary canon, which is what we're here to talk about ostensibly

but lol if you think a Semitic Jew's reinterpretation of Semitic Judaism in Jerusalem 2000 years ago is white. Catholicism also started in Italy, and as a fun aside Italians were also non-white at one point in American history.

>then must also disagree with celebrating 'black' and 'hispanic' culture.
Again not what I'm talking about.

>Why do you bring up these unrelated topics? We are talking about white identity.
Because in all the greentext I got your post and the anarcho-capitalist's posts mixed up.

>You just said the normal culture in western nation is white. How can these two things be true at the same time?
It looks like I didn't express myself very well on the "normal" front in my last post.

But again, you're celebrating the absence of features.

If you're referring to whiteness as a distinctly American ethnic identity (which doesn't jive with your references to Europe) then that's fine, but you need to disentangle it.

Identifying with whiteness is identifying with the capitalist system that erased your identity and reduced you to an economic object, and that makes you a cuck.

>>9099484
>where the various European ethnic identities have been eroded away into a non-entity called "white"
They have been combined into the identity called 'white'.
Just like the african identities have been combined into the identity called 'black'.
But you somehow insist that one has been 'eroded away', but the other one is a combination?

>Black/Hispanic are similar blanket terms but they're by definition distinct from white. Id on't know what this has to do with anything I said though
So you agree that white culture is the host culture of the country and black/hispanics separate themselves from this white host culture. How on earth can you make the argument that white culture does not exist?

>you're celebrating the absence of features.
If you are in India, are you going to argue that Indian culture does not exist because there are minority groups in India with unique sub-cultures? You are severely deluded.

>White identitarianism is inherently identifying with the system that has and continues to generate violence against designated Others, which is why people call you a Nazi.
Only by your twisted definition of 'whiteness' which excludes all positive aspects of white identity and history and only applies the negative actions of white people in the past. A rather deliberate attempt to destroy white culture by gerrymandering language.

You wouldn't like it if people started to refer to African atrocities by the term 'blackness' would you?

>don't
You don't appreciate democracy and liberalism?

File: 1480308005734.jpg (2MB, 3000x2102px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2102px

>>9099365

It's not a made up term. I look a lot more similar to someone from France than someone from Zimbabwe. The French person and I have some shared history and culture, whereas the only connection I have with Zimbabwe is that my uncle used to shoot animals there.

White protestants from Northern Europe are especially close knit, that's why the Irish were considered sub-human, they were Catholic. The British hated all Catholics and were always fighting wars with them. You have to remember that before the current year religion was a big deal.

It's pretty normal for people with a shared culture to band together against those with a different culture, it's not a particularly "white" thing to do.

>>9099365
>People cling to whiteness out of the realization that they're crackers with no culture and history
that's what all Americans are, sorry (including the brown ones)

File: 114681-full.jpg (413KB, 1024x712px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1024x712px

>>9099515
>I look a lot more similar to someone from France than someone from Zimbabwe.

uhhh

>>9099535

I mean an actual Frenchman, not an immigrant.

>>9096354
>Pseudo Nationalism where you bitterly hate your fellow citizens and your nation too
>Embrace Bush Doctrine of Anti Intellectualism
>we Post Truth now
>Individualism becomes a core tenant along with Fuck You and Never Listen Only Obey Secret Society Rules

>>9099365
the term Nation in the context of nationalism is a buzzword for a dynamic arbitrary construct of the rich oligarchy

>>9096384
ur fucking retarded holy SHIT

>>9096747
Italian here. to me they make perfect grammatical sense. maybe it has something to do with structure

>>9096354
Individual aspirations to greatness for the betterment of the whole and the self where greatly encouraged, just not against the interest of the society.
The only problem with collectivism is the power structure being insurmountable and the inevitable abuse of said power structure.

>I plant seeds in the land and infuse the land with my labor thus I'm responsible for that farmland. Since I now possess the essence of responsibility of that farmland so do I possess the subset responsibility of the responsibility to choose what happens to it aka ownership. No one else possesses that "responsibility to choose" than I because they do not possess any set of responsibility for that farmland thus giving me the right to exclude others from utilizing that farmland.

You are very much out of touch with reality, far too intellectualized into completely unrealistic ideals to see you precious 'should be' way of thinking would get shat on by whoever had the strength to take what you claim to be yours.
Society benefits the weak most of all, funny how they think it is their enemy. Without society, might makes right.

I'll stick with both thank you.

>>9099541
Those people contribute to France more than you and your family 3 generations down the line together in a year. Both financially and culturally(if you consider success in sports as part of a country's cultural achievements)

File: smug racist.webm (439KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 640x360px

>>9100956

Good thing I'll never have to defend my citizenship by tallying up how much tax I pay or how many soccer goals I score. Citizenship is my birthright, and I'll never have to justify it to anyone. I could be a drunken bum on the street and it still wouldn't matter.

>>9096384
100 troof

individualism is good except if it involve brown people

nope

>>9099365

An argument could be made that specifically "white" nationalism is in some part a defensive formulation given the post-colonial identification of "whites" as cultural and political bloc of enemies.

For pretty obvious reasons too, white nationalism tends to come out of colonial nations where multiple European ethnic/cultural/religious groups were synthesised into an organic people of sorts - peoples who I think are justified in pursuing self-preservation as distinct groups.

I think you'll find that white nationalists themselves are often for those "real ethnocentric states" you mention.

>>9099542
Nice schizo post.

>>9101651
And here we see the true motive behind nationalism: compensation for lack of personal value.

>>9103657
That's true for all group mentality. Especially black identitarians in the US.

>>9096623
>Authoritarians want liberty.

O-ok...

>>9103657
And here we see the true motive behind arguing on an anime imageboard: