Читайте также:
|
|
The average “conservative” in the US is NOT a nationalist (anti-internationalist) but a libertarian (republican – pro capitalism and pro multiculturalism). A majority of US conservatives have no understanding of the concepts of political nationalism. After all, they have no experience with these doctrines and often mistakenly confuse them with fascism. Those Americans who are in fact nationalists are almost always ethnocentric and are often associated with rhetoric related to “14 words movements”. This represents the first major divide as Europeans do not identify themselves as “white” but European. “White nationalism” does not exist in Europe. The reason is because Americans have been indoctrinated to suppress their European heritage (they don’t generally identify themselves using the term European-American) and many have therefore instead adopted the term “white”. The 14 words principle: “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” reflect the typical US “white nationalist” mentality and should never be used by a European individual. The term is indicative of a so called “race struggle” and therefore NOT necessarily a struggle for indigenous rights. Europeans on the other hand do not fully understand the potency of using rhetoric related to “indigenous rights.
Rhetoric related to “indigenous rights” is an untapped goldmine which has currently been deluded and sidetracked due to “rhetorical contamination” from the US. If you use “white nationalist” rhetoric you are instantly placed in the same category as Hitler. This is not the case with rhetoric related to indigenous rights as this rhetoric is usually related to the Aboriginal or Native American struggles. Some of the reason why many nationalists reject the “indigenous” argument is because it is generally used by a group who has been defeated. Both the Australian aborigines and the Native American forces fought hard for their rights but both were utterly annihilated due to the fact that they lived in the Stone Age when the Europeans first arrived. Some nationalists thus associate these arguments with rhetoric of victimhood and defeat. The maschochistic nature of some nationalists (so called white nationalists in particular) turns them off from using this form of rhetoric and they instead contribute to defeat themselves by using rhetoric associated with supremacy. While I do not condone the “victimhood hype” in any way or form the fact remains that playing the victim card is the most potent strategy of our times. Refusing to use a logical and pragmatical approach in this regard (due to some primitive need to feed individual egos) is counterproductive and highly destructive.
Дата добавления: 2015-07-17; просмотров: 92 | Нарушение авторских прав
<== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
But what about the relevance of the terms “ethnicity” and “race”? | | | Are we a “Sitting Bull[1][2]” or a Hitler of our time? |