Exh nation vies

In order to build a revolution to overcome our society’s Capitalism , we need to build a working class  . But we can only build this revolutionary party by engaging in all relevant issues affecting the working class, which I lay out in these sections of my blog 

I feel that Socialism is better than Nationalism without adjectives as Socialism is the heart of a post National world and creates better solidarity than Nationalism without adjectives and all forms of Right wing Nationalisms. However, every socialist movement had essential components of nationalism. 

However this author defended Nationalism, in the early USSR they implemented Korenizatsiya (inspired by Vladimir Lenin) and Soviet Patriotism which are similar to Nationalism, Mikhail Bukinin was a Nationalist briefly and Nationalism was originally a Left wing concept during the French Revolution, so that’s why I am or support some Center Left Nationalisms and Left wing Nationalisms

One critique I have of Nationalisms is the whole National Memory make up of Nationalism. Nations change and many forms of Nationalism that seek to shove our history down our throat (i.e Garden of Heroes nonsense, Memorial Day or Patriots Day etc), makes me anathemic to a lot to most forms of Nationalism. Fascists and deep Right wingers ruined Nationalism

However, I believe that the nation is defined as the totality of persons bound together through a common destiny into a community of character. To me, national identity is not necessarily obstructive toward class consciousness, existing as a useful praxis for the self determination of the worker. 

The issues with National identity (within a capitalist society) was not national identify itself but really the tendency of the lower classes to cling to traditions which tether them to the institutions of the old bureaucratic and capitalistic systems in addition to nationality being conceived of exclusive racial/ethnic and territorial means .

I feel that the notions of territorial principle can be substituted in situations where minority populations risked being subjugated by majorities. 

We can use Karl Renner's notion of the "personal principle" as a way of gathering the geographically divided people of the same nation. The personal principle can be used to organize nations not in territorial bodies but in a simple association of persons. 

This would radically disjoin a nation from its territory thus creating a non territorial associated nation. It is important to doing way with sub national territorial identities as undemocratic and allowing for the treatment of non majority populations within each nation that Karl Renner wrote about here. 

Basically, the nation should be conceived as an evolutionary process via open, plural and political construction

Nationality doesn’t exist, material conditions do exist however. Nationality is self-referentially cultural —- a person is part of a nation because the person perceives his/herself or is perceived to be part of that. 

Though material conditions are objective: one is proletarian or bourgeoisie no matter what someone believes him/herself to be. There are obvious prerequisites for being proletarian or bourgeoisie, whereas ethnicities or nationalities are not sufficiently clear and are not consistent. Being “working class” is not an identity, working class is a state of being. You can’t just choose that you are not working class.

National identities are "existent" in that they are believed in, yes, yet these identities emerge from and are molded by the subtle material forces at play: forces of capitalist production and reproduction. 

National identities are also always in flux in bourgeois/capitalist societies, and cosmopolitanism is born of the predominant nature of production every place on Earth. This is due to cosmopolitanism serving productive aims, and due to capitalism's motivation for growth and to expand out of necessity. This too is why attempting to fuse reactionary traditionalism with capitalism is doomed and will thus fail.

Nationality is an example of an imagined community, it is not an authentic relationship whereas class is. 

We obviously should show zero tolerance or ethnic discrimination, however it cannot create a sound basis for political action, since idpol not only obfuscates class along with inequality, but also reinforces capitalism, and ultimately leads to genocides. Idpol should thus be opposed.

The traditions of a community moreover are for the most part irrelevant. They are historically malleable, and continuingly exchanged and negotiated between communities throughout the ages. Greek religion robbed from the near East, Rome culture from Greece, Catholicism robbed from Rome, etc. Nothing is ongoing. What is meaningful is people, and how well people live. 

Healthy nationalism like I support (i.e the type that the NY Times editorial board would be cool with) won’t devolve into a more jingoistic or bigoted forms because such healthy nationalism is an antidote to right-wing grievance politics. “What this hyper-atomized approach to living has done is it’s denied people a sense of solidarity,” he said. “I think some people go and find it in their racial identity or ethnic identity, and I think that’s especially dangerous.”  JD Vance

The societies who created the modern world should not apologize for creating the modern world

Our great culture we have today originated in Greece, Persia, Egypt and with the Cherokee peoples (to name a few). Free Democracy was born out of that and spread to almost the whole world. 

I do not want the US to lose its national identity in a way where the US culture is unrecognizable to what it traditionally is. Otherwise why have a country at all? We should share our common historical solidarity. Our nations are a reflection of our unique spirit and ideas. 

I take some of the black block Autonomous decentralized Antifa groups' ideas (ie like Anti Globalism, Anti imperialism, Anti Capitalism) and fuse them with my own since I support Autonomism . I also support some of said groups

I view specific blocks of ANTIFA in the same exact way that British viewers viewed Alf Garnett on Till Death Us Do Part. 

Like those British viewers overlooking Alf's bigoted views due to his earthly charm to see Alf as a rough diamond, I similarly overlook the edgy, provocative and partial Liberalism 2.0 views of those specific blocks of ANTIFA due to their earthly charm to see those specific blocks of ANTIFA as rough diamonds

Contrary to what the Lincoln Project claims, ANTIFA is not like the World War II American soldiers , see this for why

I am not ANTIFA and I am not part of any ANTIFA black blocks. I am not an ANTIFA supporter

I echo this critique of autonomous antifascism

ANTIFA are wrong to counterprotest at pro life , anti drag queen and pro woman rallies (i.e gender critical rallies). There is nothing fascist about being pro life, gender critical or against drag queens being exposed to impressionable kids. Notice how in most cases, ANTIFA is more pro Liberal 2.0 than pro left?

Any autonomous ANTIFA blocks that have antifascists that work with Al Qaeda or ISIS, as alleged here if true, should be confronted by their ANTIFA block or if not their block ,ally ANTIFA blocks and and disavowed entirely for said alleged extremism and if they refuse to stop working with those terrorist groups , they should be marked as a counter revolutionary by various other ANTIFA blocks at future ANTIFA protests for obvious reasons

ANTIFA has blocks that have a huge presence on every college campus, major western city, and is protesting zealously on a monthly basis . 

They are being a little to rough of a diamond at times including here , here and allegedly above ,to the point where the FBI and DHS were actively investigating them (see here for example). If ANTIFA uses its decentralized, autonomous nature as an excuse to allow a few bad apples , that will spoil the whole bunch and then ANTIFA will be seen as counterproductive and expendable to Liberal 2.0ers. 

If this was the other way around, Democrats would have made ANTIFA go the way of the Tea Party 

Sometimes we have to accept that social groups will be repressed as a key part of class struggle against exploitative classes . But the light at the end of that tunnel is bright

I always fight against oppression

Down with all forms of antisemitism, xenophobia, sexism and prejudice

I support Patriotism and Social Patriotism 

I support Left Wing Nationalism and this type of base idpol

I don’t care for Left Wing populism and I find it divisive 

I am a Civic Nationalist

I support Bill Maher type of Western values traditionalism

In part due to the inner Ego Anarchist in me, I support Pro Western Leftism and fraternalism

I support what some people would call ‘Bourgeois’ Civic Nationalism based on the Scottish model. 

I would only support this type of Civic Nationalism in the extremely rare hypothetical cases 

I support former President Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism

This article makes some good points on cultures

I support the importance of the battle for cultural hegemony in times of crisis where an electoral project can articulate and draw together various democratic demands and create a political subject that can carry this program through. This can be done via populism

I want Anarchists to cultivate harmony between certain anarchist ideologies and to unite against the state

Anarchists have rightfully overthrown elite ruling classes, oppressive empires and states and should unite under than precept. Anarchy should be restored to the way it was in the late 19th century and early 20th century for me to embrace other forms of it besides the few I embrace now

I hope that all Right Wing Nationalists and Conservative Nationalists stop being small minded and ignorant and stop being Right Wing Nationalists and Conservative Nationalists . 

I then hope they become either Patriotic Socialists who blur the line of being European Socialists or become Post Nationalists. This would be a gateway to help them move more left

I admit that Liberal Nationalism and Democratic Patriotism (like current Democrats and people who like Joe Biden fight for the rights of all people) at least seemingly improves the rights of all marginalized groups in the US.  Constitutional Conservatives or Stephen Miller type troll Nationalists are a threat to this and there is a unique way to use Liberal Nationalism and Democratic Patriotism to fight that right of center threat

Eventually in the future once Liberal Nationalism and Democratic Patriotism reaches its intended goal and there is no need from from Liberal 2.0ers to have Liberal Nationalism and Democratic Patriotism anymore, it will make our country as a whole less divisive, more united and thus more motivated to prevent regressing on that issue. 

Any actual injustices against Constitutional Conservatives or Stephen Miller type troll Nationalists in such a new world (which would be extremely rarer than it is now) will no longer be tolerated or accepted by anyone, not even by their political rivals, thus not giving them even a hint of the appearance of an excuse for garbage

So basically Liberal Nationalism and Democratic Patriotism,  can have a trickle down effect to help Constitutional Conservatives or Stephen Miller type troll Nationalists not be Constitutional Conservatives or Stephen Miller type troll Nationalists like how Capitalists claim that Capitalism can have a trickle down effect to help poor people.

This echos my thoughts on White Nationalism: https://web.archive.org/web/20220524210933/https://www.facinghistory.org/educator-resources/current-events/explainer/white-nationalism

White Nationalism is deplorable, ignorant madness. White Nationalists should stop being White Nationalists. I am very upset that more and more people are being brainwashed to be White Nationalists and because White Nationalism is moving into the mainstream. 

We need to unbrainwash White Nationalists so they stop being that way and we need to stop White Nationalism from being mainstreamed. I hate seeing underground things get mainstreamed, brainwashing one mindless zombie at a time, especially evil things like White Nationalism. 

They should not try to force their White Nationalist will on our country since White Nationalism is wrong , small minded, bourgeois and is dystopia for our country and any country. 

White ethnostates would be boring vanilla places because there would be no diversity and just whites. 

I love diversity , I like people because they are different, I do not like everyone being the same or doing the same things, so seeing White ethnostates would drive me insane and would trigger me since they'd all look the same 

Another reason (reason 24,986,922,167,986) that White Nationalism sucks is because I feel that White Nationalists are snowflakes and pussies. 

White Nationalists are snowflakes and pussies because they are not mentally strong enough to suck it up and live around BIPOC+ and try to get along with them. 

This is because White Nationalists whine about needing their pathetic white safe spaces to avoid being triggered or offended which annoys the heck out of me hearing those snowflakes acting like babies. 

That is the exact type of behavior we see from some Liberal 2.0 snowflakes so White Nationalists are hypocrites

We need to aggressively reprogram and use otherWhite Nationalists to realize that the GRT is a myth

Interracial marriage and migration are not a legitimate form of white replacement.  They are good, natural and healthy acts that are the lifeblood of any free and Democratic and inclusive country

I feel Tucker Carlson isn't an intelligent person if he gets his talking points on migration from the deep Right Wing/Alt right forums. He should do more research and rely on better sources before he speaks about migration and Democrats. 

More and more hispanic voters are voting Republican than Democrat so that disproves Tucker Carlson’s wild migration theories

Even if migrants voted more D than R, (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats) , so what? 

It may be true but there is no hidden 'conspiracy' by Democrats to have Democrat voter migrants magically replace non Democrat voter migrants. The Democrats aren't smart enough to devise such a scheme.  We can't even pass Left wing economic policies with a Democrat house.  

In the Emerging Democratic Majority, a 2002 book by John Judis and Teixeira, predicted the coalition of college graduates and minority voters that brought former President Barack Obama to power. Democrats path’s to victory involves expanding the electorate with young and diverse voters something that the Republicans neglect

In 2013, the Center for American Progress said, "Supporting real immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for our nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future."

The Republicans appealing to mostly white voters (like in 2016 in Donald’s Trump faux election victory)  ,being border-hawks and being hard on migration pushes many migrants (many of whom come from Liberal 2.0 or Democrat countries in Europe, Canada, South America etc) to vote Democrat.

Democrats may know somewhere inside what that pew article says in terms of more migrants probasily voting D than R but that isn’t why they are pro migrant. 

Though it might unconsciously or very deep down inside push Democrats to not move right at all on illegal immigration, securing the border, bipartisanship on migration etc.

If Republicans would ease up on migration , come left a bit and be more inclusive and big tent, maybe they can get the migrant vote over the Democrats. If Republicans want to stop migrants from voting Democrat then the Republicans should try to win the migrant vote instead of coming up with wild theories   

America has always been a haven for migrants of all identities. Our country was Native American before it was stolen by aristocratic imperialist bourgeois colonist Europeans so even if it we became majority BIPOC, it would be like the pre colonized US. 

When I want a cultural shakeup, I support a notorius m agonistic strand of radical democracy which seeks to expand democracy in equality and liberty and thus radically expand and extend all civil liberties 

I like people BECAUSE they are different (see lifestyle blog for more). I am a diversity enthusiast and fanboy. 

But this article keeps me from going too far in my diversity enthusiasm and solid liking of diversity

We need a national revolution against the existing liberal-parliamentarian order

I support the Manitoba Canada type of Multiculturalism 

I see Multiculturalism as more than just a silver lining because it allows migrants who are from countries that don’t celebrate American holidays to not be forced to celebrate them like with schools banning public Thanksgiving events and parties). I. also Multiculturalism allowing different cultural values as a positive

We cannot fight against the extreme right with its forms or methods. We must organize to deepens the, dialogue and practices to curb them

We cannot definitively ignore that one of the elements of their negative speeches is that which undermines the authority and legitimacy of women which it does by exercising political hostility toward them, which can hinder their access to the exercise of their political rights which can hurt both sexes. 

We need tools to stop these anti woman reactions from the right in a way that upholds the values of the feminist movement

It is good to have an inclusive society in which each person is part of the entire fabric of our society and has access to social, political, labor and gender rights in order to create an environment where cultural and social diversity is key to social development as opposed to using bourgeois aristocratic saviorism, political opportunism, having to rely on Liberal leftist reactionarism (like SJW and cancel culture) and cold bureaucracy to do so. 

The fight against injustice and prejudice must move toward a more inclusive, dynamic and committed form of participation with the plural and complex realities in our current era

So we must focus on implementing comprehensive policies which don’t focus on immigrants or BIPOC persons but instead focuses on the origin and consequences of the exact problem as a whole

Immigrants and BIPOC people, active subjects with rights, not victims and through direct democracy and having a foot in the street so to speak, the state must work to guarantee that. It is important that they get the recognition of their agency, capacity and their political subjectivity. 

It is important that diversity in political participation, decision making, public spaces and via representation, doesn’t occur exclusively in just debates and in the decision making spaces concerning only racial-ethnic oppression and the immigrant condition, but rather, they must be present in all debates on the political and social future of this country. So they can be the change they see

So public policies should be tilted toward constitutional guarantees of equalization of rights among all people and in the public square we must make sure our country fulfills this role and establishes mechanisms that allow the enforceability of rights.

We must use greater force to get our politicians to commit to Modern Egalitarian theory principals, and anti income/class inequality and anti injustice perspectives

We tend to defend culture as that which breaks the closure of the description of reality imposed from power/powers. 

For this rupture to happen, access to culture must be guaranteed for people in its greatest possible diversity, making it easier for all artistic discourses to find their audience. Let us avoid certain maxims: no, culture per se does not make us free. 

What gives us critical thinking tools, what allows emancipation processes, is the possibility of access to the different cultural manifestations and discourses. 

If we only stick to a deliberately reduced canon, culture will be serving to prop up a certain and privileged perspective, leaving dissenting views and voices silenced (or potentially silenced). 

The task we have as a political organization is to open the canon and at the same time favor the prescription of those compositions (in all areas) that for reasons of gender, class, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation or identity, can be left out being very valuable productions and works for the whole of our collective imagination.

In this task it is also necessary to emphasize that without citizenship there is no culture. This principle has been repeatedly ignored in the cultural policies that have been developed on the right and on the left since the transition to the present day. 

Large empty containers of content and interaction with society, and a process of unbridled privatization of the most popular and interesting initiatives are the mud that explains this sludge. 

We know that it is in neighborhood spaces, neighborhoods and towns, where grassroots cultural projects are proposed that find a greater citizen response and where the most interesting and innovative meetings and artistic manifestations take place. 

Basically we want and need these models for our great and consecrated structures. A new culture for the great museums of the State, that not only keep history in a showcase, but also allow citizens to build the museum every day, that permeates its time and the people of that time.

The labor movements that came out of the 19th century had an international nature in that they were in dialogue and were supportive of each other, but all of the political wins of the labor movement was gotten within the limits of the nation-state. The reason is because the limit of effecting political change is the law: politics is altering, establishing, eradicating, policy modification and laws at the varied levels within the political realm. Ending slavery did what meaningful thing? It changing laws was meaningful. Anyone who believes that politics is social/cultural without politics being legal is a fool or lying. There is no nation-state that does not have a constitutional order, or a legal structure, or law.

Law is power because laws are enforced, and laws are enforced due to them being backed by the states violence monopoly. 

The state of our time is predicated on its consolidation of power of coercion: the princely state that goes all the way back to the 15th century Italian peninsula, in that they stated to its people: give the state power and the state will protect everyone within its boundaries from being subjected to violence externally (from France, more specifically). 

The kingly states that later emerged stated: give more power to us and we will protect you people from violence externally and internally. Every change in constitutional order, from the then and forward, are backed up by coercive power. This is a positive thing in that without it, people are exposed to arbitrary violence, which is normally much much worse than the codified violence that the state takes upon itself (with totalitarian exceptions, obviously).

All while the states in our day and age have both an internal constitutional order (for legitimizing their power to the citizens of their states) and an external calculated paradigm (for relational dealings with with other states). 

With the growth of the nation-state, laws were subsequently passed in the 20th century that constituted a order of the constitutional magnitude which was based on regulating nation wide economies in the interest of each given the citizens of the nation-states. Three different forms were needed in leading countries: liberalism, fascism, and communism. 

All three of these forms were various expressions of one and the matching historical trend, which was the increase of the national regulating the economy model at the nation-state level . With the increase of the global economy, though, the nation-state has needed to steadily give up its functionality to regulate the economy at the nation-state level ,and this has done for the state of affairs that is described, which the left doesn’t have a solution to overcome.

Politics is necessarily a manner of effecting law, and there isn’t a globalized constitutional order because there isn’t a globalized state that would be able enforce it. What remains is that politics is limited to nation-states, however nation-states themselves have lost their capacity to guide the global market. This state of affairs creates a virtually impossible situation for politics, and it lends to debates where neither side of the debate truly comprehends the historical conditions that have ushered us to where we are now