A person is born into a family, hailing from a certain land. Rightfully, such a person would consider the land in which he/ she is born to be the land of the Father, fatherland, patria.
An immigrant can adopt another land as it's fatherland by adapting him/herself to the values and culture that land has.
Both however do not belong to the same nation. It is quite possible to have several nations in one country. It need not be an issue by default. In time, those immigrants would intermingle with the majority population gradually
The globalist and other left equality fantasisers belief that when both group only are tolerant, thing will be dandy. Quite the opposite. One or the other will to make way. What we observe is the mass immigration in for example Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc, is that the country immigrants go to will have to adapt, and adopt different standards.
The protests around the treaty of Lisbon demonstrates the globalist wish to include Islam as a founding value of the EU. That idea did not go down well.
Islam itself teaches that it will only takeover as the leidmotif, second to none.
So yes, there are those who, from another nation, became Patriots to their adopted country. For the most part, these people remain foreigners at best, despite their passport.
Also, we live in a timeframe where a pushback against cultural equivalence can be seen. What is wrong with being a white etnocentrist, as many other countries profess to be centrist on the same or other faculties? What is wrong with halting the incessant influx of people who come from places where the only rule is: taking a life is power, and a total disconnect with anything that resembles a style of government based on enlightenment? In Europe, that happens to revolve around the leidmotif, being white culture. " this is how we do it".
As for the US. It was, since it's founding never a nation in the classical sense. The idea needed expansion, extension around not birth, but values.
The only real nationalistic rule governing the US, is that a person running for president, should be a natural born citizen, and resident of the US for a certain number of years prior to running.
Such a requirement is lacking in for instance The Netherlands where the Prime Minister can be anyone approved of by the Monarch.
So, what you will notice, from country to country, is that Patriots can work together, whether they are brown, yellow, white or red provided there are no dual loyalties in place.
view the rest of the comments →
16282366? ago
"White nationalists" I wonder how this kid feels about you hijacking his cause for 'White nationalists'.
Go away Shill.
Patriots have no color.
"They want you divided" Q
16296009? ago
It depends on context.
A person is born into a family, hailing from a certain land. Rightfully, such a person would consider the land in which he/ she is born to be the land of the Father, fatherland, patria.
An immigrant can adopt another land as it's fatherland by adapting him/herself to the values and culture that land has.
Both however do not belong to the same nation. It is quite possible to have several nations in one country. It need not be an issue by default. In time, those immigrants would intermingle with the majority population gradually
The globalist and other left equality fantasisers belief that when both group only are tolerant, thing will be dandy. Quite the opposite. One or the other will to make way. What we observe is the mass immigration in for example Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc, is that the country immigrants go to will have to adapt, and adopt different standards.
The protests around the treaty of Lisbon demonstrates the globalist wish to include Islam as a founding value of the EU. That idea did not go down well.
Islam itself teaches that it will only takeover as the leidmotif, second to none.
So yes, there are those who, from another nation, became Patriots to their adopted country. For the most part, these people remain foreigners at best, despite their passport.
Also, we live in a timeframe where a pushback against cultural equivalence can be seen. What is wrong with being a white etnocentrist, as many other countries profess to be centrist on the same or other faculties? What is wrong with halting the incessant influx of people who come from places where the only rule is: taking a life is power, and a total disconnect with anything that resembles a style of government based on enlightenment? In Europe, that happens to revolve around the leidmotif, being white culture. " this is how we do it".
As for the US. It was, since it's founding never a nation in the classical sense. The idea needed expansion, extension around not birth, but values.
The only real nationalistic rule governing the US, is that a person running for president, should be a natural born citizen, and resident of the US for a certain number of years prior to running.
Such a requirement is lacking in for instance The Netherlands where the Prime Minister can be anyone approved of by the Monarch.
So, what you will notice, from country to country, is that Patriots can work together, whether they are brown, yellow, white or red provided there are no dual loyalties in place.