Ethnonationalist - Am I one, in your opinion?
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:34 pm
"Ethnonationalist"
Am I one, in your opinion? (Based on my "past writings" in these forums.)
This is my opinion: I prefer the definition of "nation" in which a nation is defined by a common META-CULTURE that is voluntarily shared between ALL the sub-cultures within that nation, and in which a nation is a geographically well defined territory.
My definition of "meta-culture" is a set of societal rules/behaviors with which all sub-cultures can "deal with" each other in voluntarily mutual beneficial ways (aka "free trade" or "non-crony capitalism").
It IS easier (probably? possibly?) for single culture states/nations to have a "properly functioning" meta-culture than a nation with several sub-cultures. But "mono-cultures" are also (probably? possibly?) more susceptible to "shallow end of the gene pool" effects, and MAY (MOST probably!) auto-generate desires within itself to "diversify" (fragment) and/or import sub-cultures to fortify itself.
I consider myself a "Constitutional Nationalist". And this is not based on OUR (US) Constitution, which IS a great example of a "proper" constitution btw, but rather on the "idea" of a set of rules/behaviors that promotes a nations meta-culture (as described above) in support of the safety, freedom and prosperity of it's people.
The existence of sub-cultures within a nation is not a problem.
The inability of sub-cultures to follow the meta-cultural rules is the problem, and the "urge to totalitarianism" is the basis of that problem.
One Party State -ism, aka Totalitarianism, is the label for the description of the "Politics of Resentment".
Resentment is the driver of the cycle of genocide (GD Theory); resentment is fueled by "bad memory" (of the lessons/experiences of history), and "bad memory" is amplified and used by those who temporarily profit from "oncoming genocide". And the behaviors of those "profiteers" are the very definition of evil.
Therefore, the prime constitutional function of a nation is to create "good institutional memory" (of historical experience) and to "force" it onto (into?) it's sub-cultures such that they "want" (actually desire) to labor under the nation's meta-cultural rules/behaviors.
..and if you can make this happen via some miraculous chemical or oratorical legerdemain, you are PERFECTLY free to do so without my express permission,.. 'though a tip of the hat in my direction would be rather nifty!
..and perhaps a nice monthly contribution to my (as yet uncreated as of this Ides of March 2019) Patreon account wouldn't be rejected out of hand.
Aloha īa kākou! <shaka nui gangies!>
Am I one, in your opinion? (Based on my "past writings" in these forums.)
This is my opinion: I prefer the definition of "nation" in which a nation is defined by a common META-CULTURE that is voluntarily shared between ALL the sub-cultures within that nation, and in which a nation is a geographically well defined territory.
My definition of "meta-culture" is a set of societal rules/behaviors with which all sub-cultures can "deal with" each other in voluntarily mutual beneficial ways (aka "free trade" or "non-crony capitalism").
It IS easier (probably? possibly?) for single culture states/nations to have a "properly functioning" meta-culture than a nation with several sub-cultures. But "mono-cultures" are also (probably? possibly?) more susceptible to "shallow end of the gene pool" effects, and MAY (MOST probably!) auto-generate desires within itself to "diversify" (fragment) and/or import sub-cultures to fortify itself.
I consider myself a "Constitutional Nationalist". And this is not based on OUR (US) Constitution, which IS a great example of a "proper" constitution btw, but rather on the "idea" of a set of rules/behaviors that promotes a nations meta-culture (as described above) in support of the safety, freedom and prosperity of it's people.
The existence of sub-cultures within a nation is not a problem.
The inability of sub-cultures to follow the meta-cultural rules is the problem, and the "urge to totalitarianism" is the basis of that problem.
One Party State -ism, aka Totalitarianism, is the label for the description of the "Politics of Resentment".
Resentment is the driver of the cycle of genocide (GD Theory); resentment is fueled by "bad memory" (of the lessons/experiences of history), and "bad memory" is amplified and used by those who temporarily profit from "oncoming genocide". And the behaviors of those "profiteers" are the very definition of evil.
Therefore, the prime constitutional function of a nation is to create "good institutional memory" (of historical experience) and to "force" it onto (into?) it's sub-cultures such that they "want" (actually desire) to labor under the nation's meta-cultural rules/behaviors.
..and if you can make this happen via some miraculous chemical or oratorical legerdemain, you are PERFECTLY free to do so without my express permission,.. 'though a tip of the hat in my direction would be rather nifty!
..and perhaps a nice monthly contribution to my (as yet uncreated as of this Ides of March 2019) Patreon account wouldn't be rejected out of hand.
Aloha īa kākou! <shaka nui gangies!>