It's a modern invention, one of the most powerful modern inventions that you don't even know is a modern invention.
How do you tell a fish that water is wet?
You think that the world has always been the way that it is, but this is not true.
The modern concept of the nation was invented sometime around the 1600s. It didn't really come into being until the 1700s, and its true power wasn't unlocked until the 1800s.
Before the concept of the nation, we didn't have people thinking of themselves as belonging to a group outside of the village they grew up in. A kid that grew up in a small village in England could end up living in France or Italy and although he'd learn a new language and culture, it wasn't really that big of a deal. You could also have kings and dukes and princes and such who couldn't even speak the native language of the locals rule over them, and no one would bat an eye.
In the ancient world, as well as the medieval world, you didn't belong to a country or a nation. The local lord was in control, and if you were on his property you had to follow his rules. When he died, all of the contracts and promises made with him were null and void. His successor would have to redo everything from scratch, and if he couldn't manage that, you would find that you were now living on someone else's land. There was no continuity after his death.
There was no allegiance to anything but actual people. Flags symbolized actual living people. If you wanted to talk to a particular person, you would find his flag and then walk towards it, and you would find him at the place where the flag was. If lords were visiting each other they would fly their flags at the castle to let people know who was in town.
Because everything was focused on people, there was no concept of a community budget. When Caesar wanted to build an aqueduct from point A to point B, Caesar funded it with his own personal funds. When he collected taxes, that money went into his own personal funds as well. The money, the assets, the people, were his, not some fictional entity that someone made up.
Around the 1700s this began to change dramatically. People began to identify with other people from faraway places because they shared common ancestors or history or language. They would see that bond as more important than the bond with their local lord. They would ask their lord what they were doing to help people like them even in faraway places. When the people they identified with were troubled, they troubled their own lord about it.
When lords died, there wasn't a succession crisis every time, because the people began to believe that the lord was merely acting as an executive agent for fictional entities. In fact, if you became a lord of a certain area, you lost your own name and you took on the name of that area. As the fictional areas became more important than the actual people, the question of how you managed the domain became more and more important. All of a sudden you could "embezzle" as a lord, when in times past, that was a crime only your servants could commit against you.
These fictional entities became powerful centers of focus. Now the king of England was no longer a person, but an office, a position. The pilot's seat, so-to-speak, of a massive ship with millions of people manning each position. People wanted to know what you were doing to benefit the nation as a whole, and if they felt like you weren't doing a good enough job, they would replace you with someone else.
The Americans took this concept and perfected it, setting an example for the rest of the world. Today, it is just assumed that people think this way but they do not. More primitive (lower IQ) nations aren't even nations at all but simply an area where a bunch of primitive people live who can't even think about abstract concepts like "nation".
The modern nation looks something like this.
* It is a geographical location with well-defined borders. The ground itself belongs to no man but the nation as a whole. The nation decides what to do with it and no one can question its decision.
* It is a group of people, most of whom live on the land. There are foreigners among them, people who do not belong but are invited by the nation to stay for whatever reason. Most nations also have rules on who can join the nation as citizens and who cannot.
* It is a set of laws, traditions, customs, ancestry, history and languages. People who hold these are considered part of the nation regardless of whether they have formal citizenship in it. For instance, a Korean man who has left Korea and renounced his citizenship is still considered Korean and still shares a bond with that nation because he has their language, culture, ancestry, traditions, etc...
* A nation has a singular government, or at the very least is a confederation of governments. In the case of the US, there is the federal government and the state governments, along with all of the city and county governments and so on. But the overarching government is not a specific person or even the constitution, but the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence, that the people themselves get to choose what sort of government they want, and the people have the right to alter or abolish it whenever they feel it is necessary. Other nations draw on other forms or modes of government that is the agreed upon framework.
I know this bothers a lot of "white supremacists" here, some of whom I believe are just jew propagandizers trying to confuse us, but there is not and never will be a "white" nation. Simply having similar skin colors is not enough reason to find national unity with other people. This isn't true for any skin color. Heritage? Yes. Culture? Yes. Language? Absolutely. History? Of course. But skin color? No.
You can make generalizations about white people as a whole, but they are not a nation. You can identify predominately white nations, but none of the nations I know about uses that as their identifying feature.
The "white supremacism" in the United States is an entirely different sort. It is the idea that black people will never integrate and never be part of our nation, and so we must separate them one way or the other from us. This is NOT and never will be a movement to create a master nation of all white races, it is merely the observation that black people cannot live amongst us. The same goes for other foreigners. And the same reasoning and sentiment was used to attempt to exclude even WHITE foreigners from our nation, people like the Irish or the Italians.
The common bond of the United States is (1) we all live here, and (2) we have the anglo-saxon culture and language from England. Anyone who wants to be part of our nation must share those two features or they will never be considered part of our nation. Or, in other words, if our nation abandons any of those two points we are no longer the American nation.
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR ALL THE OTHER NATIONS. It doesn't matter where you are, look deeply into your national identity and you will see "white skin" is not sufficient.
THUS, I do not believe that white people or white nations should "come together" or "work together". There is no reason to do so, and there is no benefit to doing so. Any of our nations is more than powerful enough to solve the world's problems on their own. It was only a matter of will to do so, not unity. Hitler had a good idea, but I think he was too soft about it. At least he understood that there would never be anything but a German nation confined to the traditional borders of the German people.
How do you tell a fish that water is wet?
You think that the world has always been the way that it is, but this is not true.
The modern concept of the nation was invented sometime around the 1600s. It didn't really come into being until the 1700s, and its true power wasn't unlocked until the 1800s.
Before the concept of the nation, we didn't have people thinking of themselves as belonging to a group outside of the village they grew up in. A kid that grew up in a small village in England could end up living in France or Italy and although he'd learn a new language and culture, it wasn't really that big of a deal. You could also have kings and dukes and princes and such who couldn't even speak the native language of the locals rule over them, and no one would bat an eye.
In the ancient world, as well as the medieval world, you didn't belong to a country or a nation. The local lord was in control, and if you were on his property you had to follow his rules. When he died, all of the contracts and promises made with him were null and void. His successor would have to redo everything from scratch, and if he couldn't manage that, you would find that you were now living on someone else's land. There was no continuity after his death.
There was no allegiance to anything but actual people. Flags symbolized actual living people. If you wanted to talk to a particular person, you would find his flag and then walk towards it, and you would find him at the place where the flag was. If lords were visiting each other they would fly their flags at the castle to let people know who was in town.
Because everything was focused on people, there was no concept of a community budget. When Caesar wanted to build an aqueduct from point A to point B, Caesar funded it with his own personal funds. When he collected taxes, that money went into his own personal funds as well. The money, the assets, the people, were his, not some fictional entity that someone made up.
Around the 1700s this began to change dramatically. People began to identify with other people from faraway places because they shared common ancestors or history or language. They would see that bond as more important than the bond with their local lord. They would ask their lord what they were doing to help people like them even in faraway places. When the people they identified with were troubled, they troubled their own lord about it.
When lords died, there wasn't a succession crisis every time, because the people began to believe that the lord was merely acting as an executive agent for fictional entities. In fact, if you became a lord of a certain area, you lost your own name and you took on the name of that area. As the fictional areas became more important than the actual people, the question of how you managed the domain became more and more important. All of a sudden you could "embezzle" as a lord, when in times past, that was a crime only your servants could commit against you.
These fictional entities became powerful centers of focus. Now the king of England was no longer a person, but an office, a position. The pilot's seat, so-to-speak, of a massive ship with millions of people manning each position. People wanted to know what you were doing to benefit the nation as a whole, and if they felt like you weren't doing a good enough job, they would replace you with someone else.
The Americans took this concept and perfected it, setting an example for the rest of the world. Today, it is just assumed that people think this way but they do not. More primitive (lower IQ) nations aren't even nations at all but simply an area where a bunch of primitive people live who can't even think about abstract concepts like "nation".
The modern nation looks something like this.
* It is a geographical location with well-defined borders. The ground itself belongs to no man but the nation as a whole. The nation decides what to do with it and no one can question its decision.
* It is a group of people, most of whom live on the land. There are foreigners among them, people who do not belong but are invited by the nation to stay for whatever reason. Most nations also have rules on who can join the nation as citizens and who cannot.
* It is a set of laws, traditions, customs, ancestry, history and languages. People who hold these are considered part of the nation regardless of whether they have formal citizenship in it. For instance, a Korean man who has left Korea and renounced his citizenship is still considered Korean and still shares a bond with that nation because he has their language, culture, ancestry, traditions, etc...
* A nation has a singular government, or at the very least is a confederation of governments. In the case of the US, there is the federal government and the state governments, along with all of the city and county governments and so on. But the overarching government is not a specific person or even the constitution, but the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence, that the people themselves get to choose what sort of government they want, and the people have the right to alter or abolish it whenever they feel it is necessary. Other nations draw on other forms or modes of government that is the agreed upon framework.
I know this bothers a lot of "white supremacists" here, some of whom I believe are just jew propagandizers trying to confuse us, but there is not and never will be a "white" nation. Simply having similar skin colors is not enough reason to find national unity with other people. This isn't true for any skin color. Heritage? Yes. Culture? Yes. Language? Absolutely. History? Of course. But skin color? No.
You can make generalizations about white people as a whole, but they are not a nation. You can identify predominately white nations, but none of the nations I know about uses that as their identifying feature.
The "white supremacism" in the United States is an entirely different sort. It is the idea that black people will never integrate and never be part of our nation, and so we must separate them one way or the other from us. This is NOT and never will be a movement to create a master nation of all white races, it is merely the observation that black people cannot live amongst us. The same goes for other foreigners. And the same reasoning and sentiment was used to attempt to exclude even WHITE foreigners from our nation, people like the Irish or the Italians.
The common bond of the United States is (1) we all live here, and (2) we have the anglo-saxon culture and language from England. Anyone who wants to be part of our nation must share those two features or they will never be considered part of our nation. Or, in other words, if our nation abandons any of those two points we are no longer the American nation.
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR ALL THE OTHER NATIONS. It doesn't matter where you are, look deeply into your national identity and you will see "white skin" is not sufficient.
THUS, I do not believe that white people or white nations should "come together" or "work together". There is no reason to do so, and there is no benefit to doing so. Any of our nations is more than powerful enough to solve the world's problems on their own. It was only a matter of will to do so, not unity. Hitler had a good idea, but I think he was too soft about it. At least he understood that there would never be anything but a German nation confined to the traditional borders of the German people.