What I don't like is:

A) Failing to think outside of the false, misleading and polarising dichotomy that is the left-right scale. I don't trust anyone who refuses to think outside of it.

B) Believing the way nationalist discourse works in one's own country is how it works worldwide, or failing to realise that one's perception of nationalism is influenced by personal experience of nationalism in one's homeland.

C) People connecting nationalism with supremacism. Of course, there is frequently a sense of segregationism about it, but first and foremost it is about autonomy. You must also consider the notion of nationalism as in ideas that oppose internationalism.

D) People connecting nationalism with christianity as to coerce black metal types out of nationalistic sentiment.

Another thing I forgot to mention:

Just because Christianity has links to Nationalism, doesn't mean it is a construct of Christianity. It's not like people danced hand-in-hand under a rainbow before the rise of Christianity. People were more fiercely tribal than ever.

Also, Christianity, or at least elements of it, attempts to unite people under one belief/moral system. This goes against Odalist beliefs.

Finally, only dumb individuals seek to be the opposite to Christianity. Being opposite is impossible, there will always be shared elements. Odinist beliefs exhibit not entirely dissimilar social conservatism to Christianity when it comes to family values. Something is not intrinsically bad because it is Christian. Some Christian beliefs stand on their own, independent of theistic ideas. And on the other hand, Odinists like to draw a link between Christianity and Socialism/Communism in its notions of altruism and/or equality.

A) I do not believe in the left-right scale. I find the scale dualistic and so I considered it false. But that doesn't change the fact that most people of my country believe in that dichotomy (I cannot help change the fact that they are dumb ).

B) Nationalism is a political ideology. To say that nationalists in England are different fom nationalists in France is absurd. It's like saying that English communists and French communists do not strive for the world protectorat.

C) Nationalism and racism walk hand in hand in 99% of the cases but they are not the same. Nationalism is a political ideology when racism is a social behaviour. Also, you don't have to be a nationalist in order to be against internationalism. Anarchism is against internationalism too (and against nationalism).

D) What Black Metal has to do with the discussion?

You're falling in a fallacy here. Nationalism was the child of French Revolution. As you can see for yourself it's a product of the 19th century. It is a result of the decadent modern society and its rampant modernism. It has nothing to do with the pre-Christian era.

On a side note to this discussion why do you double post at such an unbelievable rate? From my understanding it's an act of common courtesy on the forum not to do that, and a method of post whoring that should be bannable. Yet you've done it at least 4 times in this thread alone. Please stop it is exceedingly agitating.

But you seem to frequently connect nationalism to "right-wing". Extreme nationalists aren't really free-market types. Only Paleoconservatives, but they're not really statists like those serious 'nationalists' are.



But you seem to argue based on your personal experience of Greek nationalist groups and how they define themselves. That's not meant to be an ad hominem btw.



True but, some people are nationalist because internationalist drives are detrimental to their autonomy and their culture.



It's a metal forum, for some reason I like to tie things in to metal and vice-versa. After all, metal is a discourse. Especially NSBM.



Well it didn't exist as in the tribes never said "we're nationalist" but they certainly had a strong sense of family and wariness of outsiders.

That's pretty much how I think of it. I consider myself a nationalist in a somewhat weak sense as I do prefer nationalism over internationalism, but I don't see anything bad, wrong or harmful with certain types of internationalism. I take it more on an individual basis so it really depends. I have no problem with an absolute nationalist state so long as it leaves other nations/states alone (but then again, that is what I'd like of all nations, which of course is never going to happen). I'm not a racist/seperatist, socialist, or Christian though. Looking over wikipedia, I guess I'd consider myself a civic and liberal nationalist.

I don't think there is a direct connection with nationalism and Christianity. As others have said, it's mostly used as propaganda to manipulate the easily led masses.

I'm not a Christian, racialist, expansionist (I'm more of an isolationist) or an advocate of statist ideals. I just think law-abiding citizens will ultimately pay if the world is a free-for-all, and disagree with the notion that progressive views are necessarily "the way forward".

I would say any tie with Christianity and Nationalism (as in, the strictly statist, almost NS-like type of thing) is to do with maintaining of certain mores, and a social order. That's where there's some mutual connection. But that's not what nationalism is all about because there are different kinds.

I don't connect nationalism to "right-wing". I connect nationalism to conservatism.



And you also seem to argue non-nationalists based on your personal experience. That's not how things work my friend. You cannot trace differences between Greek Nationalists, English Nationalists and Zambian Nationalists. You can trace difference between Greek racialists, English racialists and Zambian racialists because racialism is a social conduct and it varies from country to country (it depends on the environment). On the other hand Nationalism is a political ideology that doesn't differentiate from country to country (as it is with Socialism, Communism etc).



And why falling in that trap? Who forces you to become a nationalist in order to fight internationalism? There are many ways to fight internationalism and nationalism is not the best of them (in my humble opinion at least).



I wasn't aiming to bring Black Metal in this discussion my friend. After all Black Metal for me is the essence of freedom



Nationalism is connected with the State. Prior to the French Revolution States didn't existed. Only big empires that were divided to smaller regions and prior to that small autonomous tribal communities (like those of Thebes, Megara, Athens etc). Atheneans didn't hated Thebans, Megareans didn't hated Atheneans etc.

Reaper43, I am not good at answering multiple quotes in one time. I often have a problem with quoting. That's why I answer seperately to them.

EDIT: If it was an excuse Reaper it would be lame I don't feel the need to be excused for anything my friend. If the mods want they can simply detract those points

I think droneriot summed up the topic rather easily. It's propaganda, there are no conspiratorial ties between the two, just reasonable levels of resemblance that could be seen when comparing any two organizational movements.

Also, lame excuse Mors, very lame.

You should look at Hitler's Table Talk, which contains his private comments on a variety of issues, including Christianity. There are plenty of quotes that are anti-Christian.

My apologies...this is completely off-topic, but:


Adhering to an ideology opposite to Chrisitianity is possible. Extreme Satanism exists, but it involves ideals and behavior which are socially inconvenient. It also necessitates accepting as true an inherently false belief system, so it is ultimately self-defeating.

Correct. That's why I can find no sense in the statement "Satanism > National Socialism" even though I am neither.

Personally, I'd take satanism over national socialism any day. I despise both nationalism and socialism whereas Satanism (especially LaVeyan) has some interesting indivualistic qualities in its philosophy. Still stating X > Y is childish though.

But there's a stinking hypocrisy in it. Satanism is supposed to transcend Judeo-Christian notions of "good" and "evil" so no Satanist should whinge about how "insensitive" a certain political ideology is.

This anus.com article elaborates:

http://www.anus.com/metal/about/metal/n ... _1998.html

If anyone criticises it, go ahead, though I'm not going to take any "it sucks because anus.com said it" statements seriously.

Fair enough if a Satanist dislikes some of the totalitarian, "collective good" aspects of National Socialism, but I don't think a Satanism should get his/her knickers in a twist about taboos such as racism/racialism. If you decided to become a Satanist but got upset at some horrible extremity, you played with fire and got burnt.

First. I am not a Satanist. I am an Atheist and I take some philosophical theoris out of the individualistic side of Satanism and some of the less religious side of Paganism. I do not consider National Socialism to be "evil" as you say. I do not believe in good and evil. For fuck's sake I am not a dualist in order to believe in such a lame dichotomy. Plus, I do not consider racism and racialism to be taboo opinions. I do not consider anything to be taboo. From our discussions you should know me better, Neglected. The reason I dislike nationalism, racism and racialism is exactly cause of the dualism that lies in it. In the same grounds I abhore anything that implements such dualistic dichotomies.

EDIT: Typo.

I didn't say you were a Satanist, I'm just saying that it's pathetic seeing certain people who willingly embrace taboos to show off their rebellious/controversial nature, yet suddenly draw the line where it stops being politically correct.

I think you hating dualistic points of view is most reasonable but I don't really pick up on that emphasis, my impression is you seem more keen on tarring all nationalist and racialist ideas and movements under the same brush. Of course, dualistic views are rife within such circles, but there's nothing intrinsically dualistic about the views "people are not equal (on a racial level)" or "I believe my ethnic/cultural group should be an autonomous political community". Those statements only express an opinion on one issue. That doesn't presuppose certain views those people might have on other issues.

The only people I'm really concerned about are those who believe that some Zionist Illuminati is out to undermine their heterosexual, Aryan way of life, or that there's some religious significance to race (like saying Aryans landed on earth in some UFO). Such people who show a lack of discernment end up with dualistic views.

My friend you have to understand that there is nothing political correct about Anarchism. Organizations like AFA are politically correct but most Anarchists (like me) despise them cause they are staining our cause with their dualistic views.



People on a racial level are equal in overal. Sure, there are races that are most capable on let's say sports and others that are most capable on let's say science but on overal abilities all races rank up in the same level.

Humans are animals. Do not forget that. All humans belong in the same species (the human species). Just like dogs (that all believe in the dog species) have races, we also have races. Some dogs are better have a better sense of small, some are smarter, some are better guardians. But overally the amount of abilities that each of them has is the same.

Gaia depends on balance. Heraclitus once said: Nature depends on War. War between the elements that always lead to balance.



All ethnic groups should have an autonomous community. There is not a single anarchist that disagrees with it.

It seems you ignored the fact I put the statements in quotation marks and took them out of context. What I put in quotation marks wasn't the point. I wasn't here to make a statement about my beliefs on race and nation.

Anyway, I disagree with the notion of Gaia because, aside from it being New Agey bollocks, it is clear that there is not harmony in the world, it runs in contradiction with Darwinian theory, which I for the most part, agree with. Belief in Gaia is pretty much a religious belief, if you think about it.

Are races equal? No. There isn't really any equality among anything. Equality is a fairly "religious" concept(note the quotaion marks).

Are all humans equal? We certainly know they're not. Some are more intelligent, some are more athletic, some are richer, some have more power, ... etc. They just have equal rights(or are supposed to have, in the contemporary western world). Do those rights grant them actual equality? No.

The same goes with race. Some races are smarter, some are stronger, etc. And the category for that is infinite, so that overall, it is impossible to determine whice race is superior. And the concept of superiority depends. One might argue that white skin color is supperior, while another may argue that black skin color is superior. There is no answer to this, but white skin color and black skin color are certainly not equal to each other. Some might even go as far as to say that lower intelligence is superior. Higher intelligence does not mean superiority.

So, there's virtually no superiory, nor equality.

I wished I'd know where you all got the notion that some "race" (flawed concept) is less intelligent than another. There's not a shred of unbiased empirical evidence to support that.

If you refer to intelligence tests back in the fifties, those have already been shot down as biased on middle-class WASP culture and upbringing.

I don't believe in Gaia. I believe in what I see when I am in nature. And there I only see balance. Something that most people cannot get in this overly modernized industrial wasteland.

Kruel, that was exactly my point. Thanks for elaborating it a little further

The conservatism and Christianity thing happens because being a radical Christian is the kind of thing that makes you a conservative. What must be asked here is why nationalism is related to conservatism.

I'm a Christian in my own way and I kind of despise nationalism. It's also true that I'm very far from being a conservative; I support legalization and regularization of drugs and prostitution, 100% legal abortion and gay marriage, amongst other things which the so-called conservatives tend to oppose.

I think a lot of people thought I was making a case for superiority. I think what most others said about 'inequality' in this thread is pretty much in line with my thinking.

'Superiority' depends entirely on your value scale, but it's clear that certain people made a bigger contribution to civilisation than others, such as the Romans.

It depends. Do you consider yourself superior? Cause that's the case with most Nationalists (not saying that you are one though).

"Balance" sounds as new-agey as "Gaia." What do you mean, exactly?

If he used christianity as propaganda, he couldn't have been an "outspoken" atheist by definition. He would have been a closet one.

They are not neccesarily intertwined, but nationalism isnt neccesarily always evil. In the cases of the Irish natoinalism throughout the 1800 and 1900s religion was quite closely associated because the catholic irish saw the portestance english as the enemy and here each country had specific religoius alliances. Same with Prussia fighting Austria for dominance of and the unification of Germany but the religions reversed.

You do not see crap like buildings, factories, industries, roads and that kind of shit. You only see mountains, rivers, animals etc. that seem that they have not been influenced by the Modern Era at all. You can see something that you would say if you lived in 1800s. And yes, such places still exist.


heavymetalninja, Nationalism is not evil. Generally speaking, evil does not exist. Nationalism is just one of the things I consider dumb.

My 'nationalist' stance is that every people (no matter how arbitrary it is that they be a separate 'ethnicity' is) should be able to take what steps necessary to preserve its existence and autonomy, and that people whoever and wherever they are should abide by the customs of the local people (though I give a bit of leeway for trivial things like cuisine), and that the 'locals' have every right to express their concern when that is not respected or upheld, without being branded Nazis. I don't speak for America or Australia, only my country, or Europe at the most.

I wouldn't say that nationalism is dumb; nationalists don't necessarily assert false arguments without evidence. But most racism is dumb indeed, since most racists assert that their race is superior. If racists just abandon the superiority bullshit and say "I want my race to have more privileges/I want that race not to have certain rights/I want segregation of different races, because I JUST FUCKING WANT THAT," then there's nothing fundamentally stupid there.

Buildings protect us from the elements. Today you might go out after a rainstorm, smell the air, and enjoy yourself. Four thousand years ago people feared nature because it brought havoc, destruction, and disease. Factories produce all those wonderful things that you enjoy about life: the computer you're using, the servers on which this forum is based, your writing utensils, etc. Because of modernity, you can appreciate nature because it is almost harmless against you.

This is a very interesting point, you mentioned there.

No one is trying to brand anyone Nazi if he is not a National Socialist. I believe that this is clear enough.

I also beliee that any ethnicity should be able to be autonomous. I strongly believe that. However, I do not believe that people should abide by the customs of the local people. I live in a Christian country. Am I supposed to abide by Christianity? No.



I wouldn't mind living four thousand years ago. I live here though. In that era. What I do not accept to do is to forget to respect nature. I cannot sacrifice nature for the sake of society. I do not want that and I won't do that.

Nationalism is a necessity for any state, as is cultural homogeneity. There can be no genuine nationalism if the people are splintered to the point that there is no 'communal holism' in a country. This happens for a couple of reasons, I think. The first is that our leaders in the Western World are incapable of seeing any further than immediate economic gain. The second and more important reason is that our values are corrupt. We've become tolerant and passive. Our spirit and cultural identity have become less important than our individual 'freedoms' - which represent nothing more than our pursuit of material comfort. Christianity has always been an egalitarian and indiscriminate force. Despite its pretense, it is an institution that governs the material world and only the material world. The Church is not a substitute for genuine nationalistic spirit. It's a whorehouse. Anyone who calls himself a 'Christian Nationalist' is delusional. Christianity is anti-nation.

That's why I find that Nationalism has no point. Thanks for clarifying my point

Yeah, I dabbled in anarchism for a while. I was something of a syndicalist. The translation of these ideas to modern, industrial society, however, leaves something to be desired. There's no way to do it peacefully. Furthermore, anarchists talk about freedom as if there is no other requirement for stable society. As I mentioned, I equate the neurotic desire for unabated 'individual freedoms' with a base desire for individual material gain. Ultimately, I find that a materialistic society is what the left wants, that liberalism is unabashedly materialistic. Marxists, anarcho-syndicalists, communists...they feel that all of society's ills have economic explanations and only economic solutions need be proposed. After having taken a good look at it, I now find leftism, and especially modern progressivist liberalism, to be irresponsible at best.

I'm for the curtailment of certain "freedoms" (such as the freedom to irradiate a spring or escape paying fortunes in taxes), the expansion of others (WEED) and the stabilisation of most (guns, surveillance, individual protection vs. the municipal/provincial/federal levels of government). For every ounce of freedom taken away, a pound of civic and legal participation must be added - people need to push new laws on legislators and rigourously define boundaries through court precedent.

I have no problem declaring myself a classical liberal, or "neoliberal," the term that includes modern caveats to "less is always better". I'm dead against the privitisation of prisons, basic medical care and the school system, but I goddamn well wish that people would do their civic duty and whip those calcified public-service bureaucracies in the ass. It's a goddamn democracy, we can find a way to do it!

If I was an anarcho-syndicalist I would probably disagree. However, that's not the case with me. I'm more of an extreme individualist / individualist anarchist so I do not support any kind of collectivist anarchism.

Conservatism IS right-wing.