1. Your cunt

1. American in Ukraine
2. Kike bullshit.

White countries are better than mixed and nig countries.

Why would a burger be in Ukraine?

Ethnic nationalism is pee civic nationalism is poop. It’s all pee poop

It's cheap. Each 500UAH is about $20 and lasts me a week. I work online and don't have to worry about shit. White country, safe city, beautiful people.

Attached: IMG_20180727_184613.jpg (2976x3968, 1.47M)

I'm unironically a globalist.

Damn nigga so what's your work?

I juggle fake Internet money.

Hmm... that is a shorter name for it

It's definitely good when the immigrants talk about about the country they immigrated to and its people as "us".

multi-ethnic societies are cancer

You guys should do a check on Jow Forums. It's still full off stormfaggots.

1. funland
2. Symbolic handjob to the actual nationalists to have them support importing evermore nigeti nogs. It doesn't work tho.

I made some images on the topic.

Attached: civic_nationalism3.jpg (1296x730, 266K)

is that picture reverse day? xD

Yes, if I had to live in a house with hyenas i would like it if they could make me some tea every now and then

Not sure what that's supposed to mean

You are a pee

Unrealistic

Unfortunately a lot of immigrants are trash but such people exist

Nice trips Satan.

1. USA
2. A nice way to ease people into white supremacy

Cringe.

No, it works.
You can't just go full-on invisible knights of the Klan on a normie. You start by allowing them to feel OK about loving their country. Then you prime that a country is more than just borders and laws, but the culture it represents. From there, it's a pretty easy thing to demonstrate that allowing non-whites into the country and allowing non-whites to change the culture is a bad thing.

From there, bam, you've got another voter in favor of closing the borders and severely limiting immigration.

92790487
cringe

Civic nationalism is cringe
Pan-Europeanism is cringe
White nationalism is cringe
Normal nationalism like Irish nationalism or Spanish nationalism where its based on ethnic group is based.

It's ok. I don't understand why Jow Forums dislikes it so much, if they are correct about non-whites being inferior then non-whites will forever be on the bottom of the social hierarchy. As long as non one is interfering with the hierarchy, what's the problem?

Jow Forums doesn't like it because of the inherent risk of being on the next-to-lowest rung on the ladder.
There are about seven social classes in the US social pyramid (capitalist, upper class, new money, professional class, working class, working poor, poverty class) The level of social mobility in this country means that moving up is virtually impossible, though moving down is fairly easy.
The NEETs on Jow Forums are only one extended illness away from being at the bottom tier, which would functionally make them non-whites.

Hate it

I agree. I would elaborate.

Note that I am using non-standard definitions for existing phrases.

Methodological nationalism (whereby the nation is recognised as a real and important thing) is good and sensible.

Practical nationalism (according to which sovereignty in the state is said to belong to "the nation") is wrong and stupid.

Methodological nationalism is typically ethnic, although a racial form is plausible in theory. In any event, it is fundamentally incompatible with civic nationalism (which denies the reality of the nation by equating it with the population that happens to live in the state) and pan-nationalism (which denies the importance of the nation by subsuming it in to a larger whole). Racial nationalism has the same problem as pan-nationalism, although it may be appropriate in a context like America's, wherein racial problems will only worsen if a purely ethnic solution is pursued.

I have shown that civic nationalism is not a form of methodological nationalism. Civic nationalism is practical nationalism for the same reason; it equates state with nation. Civic nationalists believe that support for and participation in the state implies support for and participation in the nation. This is only true (and if so, then necessarily so) in the case that state policy pursues ethnic nationalist goals and interests, which renders civic nationalism redundant and stupid at best; though it is in fact a poisonous sort of red-herring in almost all real examples (because it diminishes or obscures the nation in favour of the state).

In fact, if we are to be more honest with our terminology, we should say that "practical nationalism" is not really "nationalism" at all, but just a form of "statism". This being the case, the only actual nationalism is methodological, and the only proper form of it is ethnic, with racial nationalism being at best an emergency stop-gap.

I would propose, further, that 19th century German, Italian and Japanese nationalism (unifying nationalisms) are examples of methodological nationalism; in contrast, 20th & 21st century Irish, Basque and anti-colonial nationalism (separatist nationalisms), while they may be right to oppose what is a sort of pan-nationalism that diminishes ethnicity, are wrong insofar as they have tended to focus on practical matters whereby the state is central to their conception of the nation (although a number of Irish poets and intellectuals should be commended for having avoided this, having specifically focussed on ethnic cultural consciousness in their work, its impact on the state was insufficient).

But! some might protest, pan-nationalism also unifies; the problem is that it unifies on a non-ethnic basis. We might nevertheless conclude that non-ethnic forms of nationalism can be pragmatically good in certain types of contexts; European pan-nationalism would be a helpful stepping-stone to escape global humanitarianism; White nationalism would be a helpful stepping-stone to escape American multi-racial civic nationalism. Perhaps even civic-nationalism has a role to play, in a context where the very notion of shared interests in birth- or culture-based groups is reviled. But it is still an abomination.

TL;DR: The correct view is to embrace the ethnic nation as a core component of governance, but to reject fairy-stories like popular or otherwise abstracted sovereignty. It may be acceptable, in given political contexts, to use flawed or false forms of nationalism, but only insofar as they bring the state closer to the nationalist ideal.