"socialism Lite", I.e., The Scandinavian Model

[HighwayStar 8]

Interested to see how many people will get this.

**** nick griffin

[ahosang 0]

...

[vbnautilus 48]

Ok, a few things.1) It is interesting to observe all the 1-liner retorts. As I said, there are no real concrete refutations of nationalist ideology. Since the leftists in UK declared war on a sovereign nation without provocation(Iraq), we also lose the 'Nationalism is War!!' nonsense - it is clear that war can and will be brought by leaders of any political flavour..2) I am not Nick Griffin. Nick Griffin is a European ethno/racial nationalist whereas I am a non-white civic nationalist from a developing nation.3) Racial/ethno nationalism is probably preferable to no nationalism - but it is a form of the ideology that requires discipline, and arguably humans are currently unable to adhere to a necessary level of discipline to avoid conflict.4) I am actually flattered rather than insulted to be accused of being Nick Griffin. Nick Griffin could actually give a far better historical background and analysis of NATIONALISM than I can. If you wish to get more from Nick Griffin, i suggest you visit the British National Party site.

Personally, I am not interested in any "ideology" and I would discourage anyone from adopting one. That said, given the number of words you have written I still have very little idea what you are actually suggesting. You keep referring to some idea, without actually explaining exactly what you want to happen. I don't mean this to be rude, but your posts read to me like "blah blah BLAH-ISM, blah blah-ism, ism-ism, blah blah-ism." I get only energy but no substance.

[Sheiky 0]

Ok, a few things.1) It is interesting to observe all the 1-liner retorts. As I said, there are no real concrete refutations of nationalist ideology. Since the leftists in UK declared war on a sovereign nation without provocation(Iraq), we also lose the 'Nationalism is War!!' nonsense - it is clear that war can and will be brought by leaders of any political flavour..2) I am not Nick Griffin. Nick Griffin is a European ethno/racial nationalist whereas I am a non-white civic nationalist from a developing nation.3) Racial/ethno nationalism is probably preferable to no nationalism - but it is a form of the ideology that requires discipline, and arguably humans are currently unable to adhere to a necessary level of discipline to avoid problems.4) I am actually flattered rather than insulted to be accused of being Nick Griffin. Nick Griffin could actually give a far better historical background and analysis of NATIONALISM than I can. If you wish to get more from Nick Griffin, i suggest you visit the British National Party site.

Hitler? George Bush? Kaiser Wilhelm? You say you're from a developing nation, yet you're info bar says you're from the UK...

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Ok, a few things.1) It is interesting to observe all the 1-liner retorts. As I said, there are no real concrete refutations of nationalist ideology. Since the leftists in UK declared war on a sovereign nation without provocation(Iraq), we also lose the 'Nationalism is War!!' nonsense - it is clear that war can and will be brought by leaders of any political flavour..2) I am not Nick Griffin. Nick Griffin is a European ethno/racial nationalist whereas I am a non-white civic nationalist from a developing nation.3) Racial/ethno nationalism is probably preferable to no nationalism - but it is a form of the ideology that requires discipline, and arguably humans are currently unable to adhere to a necessary level of discipline to avoid problems.4) I am actually flattered rather than insulted to be accused of being Nick Griffin. Nick Griffin could actually give a far better historical background and analysis of NATIONALISM than I can. If you wish to get more from Nick Griffin, i suggest you visit the British National Party site.

I tend to agree with these quotes as they relate to Nationalism.Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. Albert Einstein Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. "Patriotism" is its cult. Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (1955) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. George Orwell And my personal favourite.Nationalism ... is like cheap alcohol. First it makes you drunk, then it makes you blind, then it kills you. Dan Fried, US diplomat (Jan 07)

[hblask 1]

1) It is interesting to observe all the 1-liner retorts. As I said, there are no real concrete refutations of nationalist ideology.

That's because there is no real concrete ideology.Try giving a specific program that you would like to see implemented, and let us tear it apart.Just saying "We're great, we're better, put us in power" doesn't make it an ideology.Or, this:

Personally, I am not interested in any "ideology" and I would discourage anyone from adopting one.That said, given the number of words you have written I still have very little idea what you are actually suggesting. You keep referring to some idea, without actually explaining exactly what you want to happen. I don't mean this to be rude, but your posts read to me like "blah blah BLAH-ISM, blah blah-ism, ism-ism, blah blah-ism." I get only energy but no substance.

[ahosang 0]

...

[ahosang 0]

...

[vbnautilus 48]

ahosang, Certainly Americans are interested in the well-being of their country, and certainly most of us identify as Americans, and as a group I think we value the love of the country. Look for example at the accusations during the campaign about who loves their country more and who is more of a patriot. No entity continues to exist without some degree of self-interest. If there were no nationalism here we would not last long (and we did during the civil war have to actually fight for the existence of the nation). However, there are some things I can add (speaking now as a psychologist currently involved in the study of group membership and social identity) that mitigate these feelings and make it very unlikely that americans will adopt the kind of ideology you seem to be suggesting. The main issue is that the USA is a much larger and more diverse population of people than you find in Europe. Group identity is fostered by co-activity. The best way to feel connected to a group is to literally move together, for example consider military training where soldiers march in exact synchrony. This leads to a dissolution of the individual self into the group -- which can be a euphoric experience. However, this only works on a small scale, as a population this large cannot assemble physically together. Probably the largest groups we get together in are at sporting events, which is I think where Americans most freely exercise the group identity aspect of themselves. But there the group is identified with a city, team, or school, not with the nation. (this is why I have personally chosen sports fans to study social group identity)Diversity is also important. We know that people feel stronger connection and "ingroup bias" towards people that are more similar to them. In a place like a small scandinavian country with high homogeneity this leads to a connected group identity at the national level. In the US we are simply too diverse for this to happen. There are some racial groups that have strong group identities based on race (e.g. Latinos) but as a nation of immigrants we are all very different at the national level. For example I might feel more similar to someone from London than I would to some guy living in the hills of West Virginia. We also have a history that values this diversity, and places emphasis on the value of the individual. The kind of psychology you are asking for doesn't really arise by conscious choice, rather it is a phenomenon that happens under the right conditions, which are not sufficiently met in the USA. It's not going to happen. Furthermore while you are stressing the benefits of this mindset (and I'm sure there are some) you must recognize that there are also benefits to not having that mindset.

[Sheiky 0]

For hblask and vbnautilus who are looking for me to give you some detailed programme, I have never lived in or studied the US economy/demographics at great length, so that is up to you. Since i currently reside in the UK, I give you a video which has some ideas of British Nationalism:http://bnp.org.uk/2008/10/nick-griffin-%E2...nancial-crisis/I don't know about the safety of nuclear power, or the viability of some of the technologies he suggests, but the gist of the speech is a good start for British nationalism.

Seems familiar...

[hblask 1]

OK, I'm not going to listen to some kook ramble for an hour hoping to figure out what the hell you are talking about. Instead, state an actual position instead of slogans. Here are some hot topics:1) Medical costs2) Immigration3) The war in Iraq4) Abortion5) Corporate welfare6) Federal retirement programsIf you refuse to state any actual positions, and just continue to spout meaningless slogans, I'll assume you belong in with nereveta and wizadult in the kook list.

[ahosang 0]

Interesting points vbnautilus regarding the US. i'm aware of the diversity of the US and the fact that such large multiracial nations should not be interested in racial nationalism. I never really championed that format for all though. You just need to define your nation as it best fits your nation. My home country is a beautifully multiracial, yet firmly monocultural nation. Remember, if you cannot identify some common strand within your citizens then your nation may crumble. hblask, the slogans are not meaningless - it is for you to interpret them.3) War in Iraq - i feel much sympathy for the tribes which were decimated during Saddam's evil rule, however the war was overall immoral as saddam was not directly threatening the American nation. Under a global acceptance of nation-states, war need not be waged. Furthermore the money spent on such a war could easily be pumped into 1) medical care - note that the costs of medical care will always depend on the nation. It is unfair to ask me to make analysis of American detail. The best i could say is that a Nationalist would place medical costs of the people as a priority(this is for keeping the population fit and healthy, not breast implants or nip and tuck), rather than the waging of war etc. A healthy populace is most desirable and calculations of money to go toward keeping the people well and working is outside of my knowledge. But in general, a governmental healthcare programme is desirable and has shown to be so in most societies(whether by direct taxation or involuntary contribution). There could be definition of 'critical' and non-critical pharmaceutical products. Drug firms can always make their own profits, but national labs can develop drugs and these critical drugs can be subsidised. I don't study your nation's details, nor medical products/requirements, so I am ignorant in this area. 2) immigration - a racial nationalist will insist on as much racial homogeneity as possible in order to prevent future problems as well as to preserve identity. therefore such a nationalist will insist that non-indigenous immigration be minimised.On a more general note, immigration should be closely controlled and monitored(regardless of any racial consideration). This is maintain control over the quality of newcomers to a nation. A nation need not import persons which are unlikely to contribute overall to a nations wellbeing. Now lets take a firm position rather than vague 'slogans'.In simple terms for the US today, i think you have too much immigration of non-skilled persons. In fact, it is part of the myth of 'perpetual growth' why that much immigration has been allowed in the last 30 years. Also the immoral seeking of cheap immigrant labour.4) This is a big issue in America due to the religious background of Americans and this topic is not something i wish to be drawn on, nor does nationalism have any dogmatic position on abortion. It is a spiritual issue, and depends on viewpoints of human life startpoint.5) corporate welfare is actually a good thing if such welfare is directed towards companies selected say by local or federal government which are identified as worthwhile for national well-being(fuels, transport, etc). Such welfare can be restricted to skills training programmes etc. The horrible reality exposed in the last few months has been 'privatisation of profits, nationalisation of losses'.6) federal retirement programmes etc are the envy of much of the developing world. Again, these have been damaged by the catastrophic fiscal mismanagement and 'investments'. Since the folly of perpetual growth(the vehicle that was supposed to secure pensions from younger generations), it is now impossible to make calculations on what budget the government should allot to these. Again i don't study the figures of your nation, so i cannot give detailed analysis for you. Generally desirable though from a nationalist viewpoint. A nation that can provide for its aged who have worked all their life is a strong and prosperous nation.7) foreign aid - this is something that shoud be cut back, and spent within the nation(medical cost, education, regeneration). Foreign aid is mostly really financial imperialism, apart from the very generous aid after natural disasters(thank you very much americans for your generosity in this regard). The whole point of a nation is that it can feed itself(whether by sowing and reaping upon the land, or by producing something else to trade for food). Propping up failed states on an immoral drip feed(which usually siphoned off into war chests and dictators' palaces) is no way for humanity to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

[hblask 1]

Remember, if you cannot identify some common strand within your citizens then your nation may crumble.

What if our common strand is "we just want to the govt to leave us alone"?

hblask, the slogans are not meaningless - it is for you to interpret them.

i.e, meaningless.

1) medical care - But in general, a governmental healthcare programme is desirable and has shown to be so in most societies(whether by direct taxation or involuntary contribution).

This is true in the sense that it is the exact opposite of the truth.

2) immigration - a racial racist nationalist will insist on as much racial homogeneity as possible in order to prevent future problems as well as to preserve identity.

FYP

In simple terms for the US today, i think you have too much immigration of non-skilled persons. In fact, it is part of the myth of 'perpetual growth' why that much immigration has been allowed in the last 30 years. Also the immoral seeking of cheap immigrant labour.

So all those people who are hiring them should just go and work in the fields themselves?

5) corporate welfare is actually a good thing if such welfare is directed towards companies selected say by local or federal government which are identified as worthwhile for national well-being(fuels, transport, etc). Such welfare can be restricted to skills training programmes etc. The horrible reality exposed in the last few months has been 'privatisation of profits, nationalisation of losses'.

So a few bureaucrats are better at making the millions of decisions that go into the economy than the people closest to the problem who deal with it day in and day out? By what magic? And what about the people who are harmed by this illegitimate competition?

6) federal retirement programmes etc are the envy of much of the developing world. Again, these have been damaged by the catastrophic fiscal mismanagement and 'investments'.

In other words, they'd be perfect if they weren't horrible? Um, that's good to know...lol.

7) foreign aid - this is something that shoud be cut back

Yay, one we can agree on!!!