lol

Goose.... duckling...
Is it your child?

https://youtu.be/TeTTyVQFkW4

So you are an *actual real live* ethnonat @Goose?

Yes. I am a fascist

Huh. Interesting.

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.

@Goose https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4QfHdcMeEc

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.

So how does that square with an Empire?

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?