What is normal nationalism, why is it normal, is nationalism “normal” in general? I recently saw messages on this topic on one of the Internet forums and decided to write an article in which I would describe nationalism, which, in my opinion, is normal. It will be about not only Russian nationalism, but also about any other nationalism. Earlier I wrote an article «nationalism or internationalism», in which I proved that nationalism is better. Now I would also like to explain to you which nationalism is better than others.
I consider nationalism as a whole to be a good phenomenon, and, in my opinion, our life would be incomparably better if the last century were a century of nationalism, rather than a century of an international plague. Internationalism did not give us anything good, but it raised hordes of idiots who seriously consider internationalism to be something good. We, the nationalists, understand that internationalism is just a big deception in a beautiful wrapper. Internationalists promise us friendship of peoples, world peace, and otherwise they put on rose-colored glasses for us. But, as practice shows, we see frequent cases of interethnic conflicts, exploitation of all peoples at once and causing damage and parasitism on the titular nation. The first thing that comes to mind is the USSR. It is not surprising, because this is a huge concentration camp state, which is a collection of many arguments against internationalism.
By the way, I have previously written articles on the topic of nationalism more than once, but only now I am writing an article about what normal nationalism should be like. Earlier, some readers and associates even sometimes misunderstood my articles due to the fact that I did not describe the materiel. Although I already wrote an article about “what is nationalism”, I think it was too vague. I myself am not limited to nationalism and it is only part of all my convictions, therefore I do not call myself a nationalist.
Normal nationalism is one that benefits the nation and does not harm. Correct nationalism should stand on the side of the interests of this nation, and not hide behind them, harming the nation or acting in the interests of others. You cannot act to the detriment of the nation, but no one says that it is imperative to harm other nations. Against. Nationalists should be in solidarity with other nationalists, because it would logically be better than enmity.
Nationalism should not only develop all areas of culture, but also prevent attempts to damage and corrupt these areas. By corruption and corruption of culture, I mean, for example, the use of the following in the creation of works that claim to be called culture: swearing, pornography or elements of eroticism, the promotion of false or downright stupid ideas, and so on. Let me explain. By false and downright stupid ideas we mean the following: propaganda of homosexuality, a call to commit suicide or any crimes, justification of these crimes (for example, pedophilia), and so on.
You ask: how is nationalism going to control culture? This naturally depends on the current political regime in the country. Personally, I propose at least subsidizing culture, because its development requires huge resources. And with the manifestations of a negative impact on culture, you can fight with the same censorship. You will probably tell me that this is terrible, because censorship is bad. But censorship is bad only in the case of a fight against «bad» opinion, in the fight against the same calls to commit suicide, censorship is simply necessary.
In parallel, there should be propaganda of important values in culture and other activities, whenever possible. A healthy lifestyle, sports, love for one’s nation, kindness and other positive qualities should be brought up from childhood. Call it whatever you want. At least by imposition, at least somehow differently. In any case, I see nothing negative in promoting good values.
But, naturally, in addition to propaganda alone, the state policy in relation to bad habits should be just as well organized. After all, in addition to words, actions are also needed. Otherwise, it will look like a hypocritical condemnation by a smoking parent of their child for smoking.
I also believe that there is an urgent need to tighten some of the articles. For example, for corruption. Thieves of huge sums today receive suspended sentences, while some people receive several years just for words or comments. This is completely abnormal. Corruption, a terrible crime against the nation, should be punished more severely.
Today, by the way, they are trying to impose on us the opinion that nationalism is the ideology of chauvinist occupiers who support genocide and oppression. This is a complete lie, nationalism has always been the lot of just the same oppressed nations. Nationalism demands to give power to the nation over its land, and not to give it into the possession of outsiders. Nationalism gave the old Germans people like the Brothers Grimm, Goethe and other writers and cultural figures who tried to revive the cultures of their nation, while many other representatives of the nation succumbed to the influence of a foreign culture.
Normal nationalism: civil or ethnic
The age-old question. Classical nationalism or civic — who has the right to be called nationalism and who does not? In my opinion, civil nationalism has no right to be called nationalism at all. Today they are trying to replace the concept of a nation with the concept of nationality, while at the same time trying to give a different meaning. Allegedly, a nation is the inhabitants of one country. This is a very funny absurdity. The inhabitants of one country have little in common, except for only one citizenship. They are nothing more than fellow citizens. Ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, unites people of the same nation who have a similar appearance, common history, culture and much more.
And no matter how you are told that citizenship and nation are one and the same, it will not cease to be a lie. Civil nationalism cannot be nationalism because it is rather multiculturalism or internationalism. The rhetoric is the same: «the nation is not important, it is enough to consider yourself a representative of this nation, love it and know the language.» The essence is also similar: filling the country with representatives of different nations. And where is nationalism here, are you kidding?
Putin was just claiming that he had progressive nationalism, implying civic nonsense. And what nationalism is there? Representatives of different nations are often in conflict, generally scattered and have too many differences. Although we have had a Putin policy for a long time. Even internationalism in the USSR was more like nationalism than the current civic nonsense. Then cultural figures and specialists came to us, but now everything is in a row.
Let’s take a more explicit example — the United States. There are not only representatives of different nations living there, but also a high percentage of representatives of racial minorities. People of other nations and races have been living together for God knows how many years, but there has never been any nationalism there. Some black movements advocate segregation and separation from whites; blacks cannot integrate into the educational process, even in spite of decades of adaptation policy; incredible multitudes of conflicts. And you want to call it nationalism? A society where everyone is as strangers to each other as possible?
Nationalism and patriotism
Speaking about normal nationalism, I will also mention patriotism. In the 2000s, many Russian nationalists also called themselves patriots. Many, but not all. As far as I remember, the Russian National Unity (RNU) did not consider themselves patriots. Although I generally disagree with this movement, there is some truth in this opinion. Calling themselves patriots, only a few nationalists considered themselves patriots of the Russian Federation, while the majority considered themselves patriots of Russia or the Russian Empire, and this is not the Russian Federation at all. In those years, it was fashion to support Putin, someone really considered him a Russian president, a nationalist, and so on. Today it is absolutely clear that it was all just populism on his part.
A true nationalist cannot be a patriot of a country that is under the rule of an enemy of the nation, whose rule only harms it. Under Putin, Russians are steadily dying out, and Russian specialists and scientists are leaving the country. And I am not yet talking about many other problems. What kind of patriotism can there be? Patriotism towards Putin’s Russia is inherent only in gullible people and those who are «in the stake.»
Patriotism is not necessarily part of a nationalist’s convictions, because for a nationalist, the nation comes first, not the state. If the state is more important to you, then you are more of a patriot with a nationalist bias. I myself am also a patriot, but a patriot of Russia itself, not of Putin. If I had a choice to stay in my country with an honest president, or to leave for another country and receive some privileges, I would be better off staying in my country. I do not want to develop foreign countries, I want to work for the benefit of my own.
Relations with other nations
Now, probably the most acute topic. Interethnic relations in our country have always been and will be tense, no matter how many years have passed. And no integration policy or other nonsense that we could observe in the United States will help us and will not change anything. Here, everyone already hates each other, and they also settle together completely different people, both in terms of mentality and other characteristics. It’s like putting two completely different students in the same dorm room with no common topics of conversation. They will still be able to find some ordinary topics, but there will be absolutely no communication.
The migration policy should be as follows. We need to stop uncontrolled migration and allow only those who meet certain requirements to enter the country. There is no need to let potential criminals in, you need to let those who will be of benefit. At the same time, we need to stop the outflow of good people from our country. But this must be done not by closing borders, but by creating good conditions for work and life. This process is unlikely to be easy, but it is necessary and absolutely justified.
As for interaction with other countries, we must first think about our nation and then, if possible, help others. We cannot afford to send billions of rubles worth of gratuitous aid to other countries, while the level of poverty in our country is too high. This is a crime against the nation. In addition, we do not mind helping others, but we must not allow others to parasitize on us. «Good should be with fists,» and not tolerate the impudence of others.
Over the past few decades, journalists and other liars have been trying to impose on us the opinion that nationalism and extremism are one and the same. Some even blatantly lie, saying that allegedly nationalism is hatred. The funny thing is that usually the internationalists were the aggressors. Proponents of multiculturalism today even fire dissenters, poison them, punish them in other ways. This is far from the truth; in fact, there are very few radicals among nationalists.
I myself believe that radical nationalism is a manifestation of the despair of individuals who are too disgusted with what is happening in their country or city. But in general, this is a negative phenomenon that did not bring us any benefit. I believe there are better ways.
I myself do not support genocide and other horrible phenomena. I am not a Zionist who defends Israel, who has been driving out the people of Palestine by any means for decades. And in general, I want to note that radicalism is now often just a manifestation of one’s own cruelty and mental problems, and any ideas are just an excuse for this. Under the guise of nationalism, we can observe maniacs who, with the same nationalism, would be in prison or treated in a psychiatric hospital.