Message from @uncephalized
Discord ID: 599115844701782031
Do you have a minute to explain what that actually means to you?
Goose do you like Spyro 3
(Not to put you on the spot)
Lol @Clive
I am a nationalist fundamentally. I believe the argument from both Nature and Scripture is that a nation is a race and a race is a nation. Nationalism is first and foremost concerned with the social health of the nation, which is the people/race. This being said, both "ethnonationalism" & "national socialism" are redundant terms. As such, I have absolutely no use for the word 'socialism',
I have a black niece and close native American friends, one of whom is on his tribal council. I love all people, but I recognize that we are separated into different _peoples,_ and that is of political consequence.
Ok.
He's stuck on repeat now lol
Yeah I think I broke him...
So what does that mean for countries like the US that are already highly multicultural and multiracial?
In your opinion.
The American Republic has failed. I believe in revolutionary reform, and the establishment of an American Empire. Tucker Carlson is fundamentally right when he says, "We're bad at being an empire because we won't admit to ourselves that we _are_ one."
So you would like to see subjugation of other peoples?
As an explicit policy that is
Rather than an implicit one.
I agree that is what we are already doing functionally.
No, but inevitably more competent people will be more influential than less competent people. Still, a policy that places a race or nation in an inherently superior or dominant position over any other race or nation is unjust. We are all equal before God.
Empire is an administrative schematic
Isn't the whole idea of empire to expand and subjugate neighboring nations?
Otherwise it would just be a monarchy.
I don't have the answer to that. If history teaches us anything, it's that empires are subject to the fickleness of their rulers, and often expansion halts for long periods of time, if not devolving into gradual atomization as we've more-or-less observed in Europe for 1500 years
I don't advocate monarchic empire
Nor would I burn the American system to the ground
Empire is about vision.
Right, in practice empires reach a point of maximum influence, but it seems like generally the idea of them is to establish dominance over other nations and force them to serve.
How so?
If a nation is about the people, and it is unjust to place one people above another...
I just don't see how these ideas fit together.
It is unjust to place one people above another in privilige or cultural clout _within the nation of the subjected._
If you don't like the America system, is there a country that currently exists that you do like? Or that you would reference for an example what a good nation should strive for?
Hmm. How can there be more than one people within a nation at all, if the nation is the people?
An empire can incorporate multiple nations, as the United Kingdom is comprised of four countries
Or that doesn't exist anymore I spose
I believe the American Constitution is the most refined document of political law to date
I sense a but coming
haha
Ok. Maybe I see. So a just empire is a coalition of nations cooperating toward a shared political vision?