"No it's not - as I've shown you and everyone else reading this.
You didn't tell me what "nationalism actually is" - you told me what YOU THINK it is - but you're wrong, as I showed you."
You didn't show anything of that kind. I'm telling you what nationalism is because as a nationalist, I know better than you what I think. If you refuse to listen, you're choosing convenient ignorance over knowledge.
"I'm Swedish and Sweden has a lot of immigrants.
Our far-right nationalist of course make a big fuss about that, scaremongering about how Swedish culture will be completely swamped by all other cultures.
But all historical records clearly shows that in reality the direct opposite happens."
I'm sorry, but that is completely dishonest. Sweden has never known the kind of immigration it is experimenting now. It is a lie to pretend that this current immigration policy is anything less than unprecedented. Furthermore, the context of immigration is totally different. In the past, native Swedes had a growing population through high fertility, culture was very local, the few migrants were cut off from their homeland and forced into a community of dominant Swedish culture. Today, Swedes have a naturally declining population, modern technology allows migrants to maintain contact with their homeland and their culture. People don't even have to interact with their neighbors unless they want to, while they can chat daily with their family members half a world away.
All of this is quite unprecedented, and fear for Swedish culture is reasonable, because it's a possible outcome of what is occurring. Multiculturalism and mass immigration weaken the host culture, and the case of English-Canadians is a strong example of that. It used to be that English-Canadians had a strong culture and identity as British subjects of North America, today, that culture and identity is almost completely faded away in Ontario, which has a massive migrant population. In multiculturalism, every community has the right to an exclusive identity and culture EXCEPT the majority, which is told to be inclusive to a fault, deprived of the moral right to use "we" or any term to describe themselves that exclude minority communities. Just like a country without borders is no longer a country, a culture that seeks inclusiveness at any cost will soon lose all meaning. For when a culture defines itself, it automatically excludes everyone who doesn't share the elements that define it.
"Furthermore, neither multiculturalism nor secularism are ideologies like you claim, they are policies - just like free speech is a policy."
All policies are based on ideas and values. Multiculturalism is an ideology. Denial of this reality just serves to deny the possibility of discussing it openly and honestly.
"On the other hand, following a policy of forced assimilation - which is what nationalists often promotes - instead risks leading to a backlash.
If you pressure people they will resent it and often do the exact opposite of what your intentions are, as a result of that pressure."
Incorrect. There may be some backlash from some, but such a course has worked in the past. The modern French cultural identity for instance has been the result of strong policies of integration and promotion of that identity on a very regional fragmented country in the 19th century. Japanese identity is also a result of a very strong assimilationist policy, so much so that people often forget that Japan actually had regional peoples: Okinawans, Enishi, Ainu.
With mass immigration, what is often seen is a voluntary segregation of migrant communities that forge their own enclaves, isolating them from the greater society. People attend kindergartens and schools in which people of the majority ethnocultural group are a minority, or in some cases absent altogether. How can people integrate or cultures blend in such a context? The result of multiculturalism is balkanization, it creates fault lines in a society, it may work in good days, but put enough pressure on the society, and CRACK! See for example how Austro-Hungary just blew up in WWI, versus how Germany remained nationally united even in defeat and during great sociopolitical upheavals that followed the defeat.
"Please provide reputable sources for those quotes or they will be ignored."
I like when people tell me to put up sources, it's a tacit agreement that the comments I denounce would be unacceptable if true. Then I show they are true, and I can watch them spin, spin, spin to try to justify them away.
Sure, you can say it's just one guy... who is currently they head of the European Commission and most powerful person in the EU. If he's there, it's not because his opinion is marginal among Eurocrats.
" And a reputable source for this claim also, or it can likewise be ignored as non-factual."
People tend not to be as forthright about this, but there are a few examples.
UN's special representative for migration said that the EU should undermine national homogeneity to transition to multicultural societies http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
The biggest issue with multiculturalism is that every culture has different values, different norms, different ideas about how life should be lived. Therefore, cultures shape every aspect of a society: laws, norms, rules, policies, etc... When in a State with many coexisting cultures, since there can be only one legal system for all, what culture gets to impose its vision of society on others? It is literally impossible for laws to be objectively neutral, they are always based on values and ideals. That's why multicultural societies are always so fragile, as cultures clash inside the same State to get their way, cultivating solidarity only inside the cultural community rather than with all citizens. That's why nation-States and nationalism make so much sense, it promotes a cultural convergence inside a State and solidarity that encompasses all citizens.
The way I see it, you can either be a nationalist, an imperialist or an anarchist. Multiculturalists tend to be liberal imperialists who believe the entire world must be subject to the same laws and guiding ideology.
30
@Nisse_Hult
"No it's not - as I've shown you and everyone else reading this.
You didn't tell me what "nationalism actually is" - you told me what YOU THINK it is - but you're wrong, as I showed you."
You didn't show anything of that kind. I'm telling you what nationalism is because as a nationalist, I know better than you what I think. If you refuse to listen, you're choosing convenient ignorance over knowledge.
"I'm Swedish and Sweden has a lot of immigrants.
Our far-right nationalist of course make a big fuss about that, scaremongering about how Swedish culture will be completely swamped by all other cultures.
But all historical records clearly shows that in reality the direct opposite happens."
I'm sorry, but that is completely dishonest. Sweden has never known the kind of immigration it is experimenting now. It is a lie to pretend that this current immigration policy is anything less than unprecedented. Furthermore, the context of immigration is totally different. In the past, native Swedes had a growing population through high fertility, culture was very local, the few migrants were cut off from their homeland and forced into a community of dominant Swedish culture. Today, Swedes have a naturally declining population, modern technology allows migrants to maintain contact with their homeland and their culture. People don't even have to interact with their neighbors unless they want to, while they can chat daily with their family members half a world away.
All of this is quite unprecedented, and fear for Swedish culture is reasonable, because it's a possible outcome of what is occurring. Multiculturalism and mass immigration weaken the host culture, and the case of English-Canadians is a strong example of that. It used to be that English-Canadians had a strong culture and identity as British subjects of North America, today, that culture and identity is almost completely faded away in Ontario, which has a massive migrant population. In multiculturalism, every community has the right to an exclusive identity and culture EXCEPT the majority, which is told to be inclusive to a fault, deprived of the moral right to use "we" or any term to describe themselves that exclude minority communities. Just like a country without borders is no longer a country, a culture that seeks inclusiveness at any cost will soon lose all meaning. For when a culture defines itself, it automatically excludes everyone who doesn't share the elements that define it.
"Furthermore, neither multiculturalism nor secularism are ideologies like you claim, they are policies - just like free speech is a policy."
All policies are based on ideas and values. Multiculturalism is an ideology. Denial of this reality just serves to deny the possibility of discussing it openly and honestly.
"On the other hand, following a policy of forced assimilation - which is what nationalists often promotes - instead risks leading to a backlash.
If you pressure people they will resent it and often do the exact opposite of what your intentions are, as a result of that pressure."
Incorrect. There may be some backlash from some, but such a course has worked in the past. The modern French cultural identity for instance has been the result of strong policies of integration and promotion of that identity on a very regional fragmented country in the 19th century. Japanese identity is also a result of a very strong assimilationist policy, so much so that people often forget that Japan actually had regional peoples: Okinawans, Enishi, Ainu.
With mass immigration, what is often seen is a voluntary segregation of migrant communities that forge their own enclaves, isolating them from the greater society. People attend kindergartens and schools in which people of the majority ethnocultural group are a minority, or in some cases absent altogether. How can people integrate or cultures blend in such a context? The result of multiculturalism is balkanization, it creates fault lines in a society, it may work in good days, but put enough pressure on the society, and CRACK! See for example how Austro-Hungary just blew up in WWI, versus how Germany remained nationally united even in defeat and during great sociopolitical upheavals that followed the defeat.
"Please provide reputable sources for those quotes or they will be ignored."
I like when people tell me to put up sources, it's a tacit agreement that the comments I denounce would be unacceptable if true. Then I show they are true, and I can watch them spin, spin, spin to try to justify them away.
-National borders ‘worst invention ever’: EU chief-
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/national-borders-worst-invention-ever-eu-chief.html
-The president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31082656
Sure, you can say it's just one guy... who is currently they head of the European Commission and most powerful person in the EU. If he's there, it's not because his opinion is marginal among Eurocrats.
" And a reputable source for this claim also, or it can likewise be ignored as non-factual."
People tend not to be as forthright about this, but there are a few examples.
UN's special representative for migration said that the EU should undermine national homogeneity to transition to multicultural societies
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
Justin Trudeau boasted that Canada was a "postnational State"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/the-canada-experiment-is-this-the-worlds-first-postnational-country
The biggest issue with multiculturalism is that every culture has different values, different norms, different ideas about how life should be lived. Therefore, cultures shape every aspect of a society: laws, norms, rules, policies, etc... When in a State with many coexisting cultures, since there can be only one legal system for all, what culture gets to impose its vision of society on others? It is literally impossible for laws to be objectively neutral, they are always based on values and ideals. That's why multicultural societies are always so fragile, as cultures clash inside the same State to get their way, cultivating solidarity only inside the cultural community rather than with all citizens. That's why nation-States and nationalism make so much sense, it promotes a cultural convergence inside a State and solidarity that encompasses all citizens.
The way I see it, you can either be a nationalist, an imperialist or an anarchist. Multiculturalists tend to be liberal imperialists who believe the entire world must be subject to the same laws and guiding ideology.