I'm not sure wether your reappearance in this niche corner of teh net' was to trigger others or to trigger yourself. So let me abade the latter sentiment.
Stupid, no longer featuring the thesaurus. "Abade?"
The prime truth that anti-White skivvies, diversity mongers, platitude pushers, parasites, pussyhatters, the comfortably sinecured, and cowardly cucks with faux pretensions of colour-blindness will neverever
ever escape from is this:
Nations are primarily societal, political and geographic expressions of race. The further a nation flees from its racial essence, the less it resembles the nation of its distinctive heritage. A homeland foreign and unrecognisable to its native people is not truly a home; it’s an imposed fiction. Worse, it’s spiritual prison.
If they "never, ever" escape it, despite your boring and try-hard collection of names for people you disagree with, you can only thank yourself for it. You'd likely take some sense of pride in that too, which is genuinely the worst part.
Your rejection of civic nationalism doesn't mean it isn't viable nor functioning. Hell, it's functioned historically and functions now. Every nation, through time, resembles it's "distinctive heritage" less and less due to a variety of factors. You seemingly think it's axiomatic that a nation should conserve that racial isolation and I think that idea is ridiculous, due to the benefits of a nation with diversification of race.
To salvage your quote, I'd say nations are partially a cultural and political expression of race and nowhere does it say it needs to be one race or a narrow ensemble of ethnicities. Sure, the more a nation "flees from it's distinctive heritage" ("diversify" is a shorter way of saying that twisted, miserable sentence I just quoted), it loses that. It doesn't lose... being a nation.
Not to mention, even more contemporary ethnic groups can live with an established ethnic group that is attached to a particular nation and assimilate without losing the salience of their cultural identity. This happens in Canada, for example, with a great deal of success (45,000 immigrants granted last year from Syria and they contribute greatly to our nation's economy and perhaps even our culture).
A homeland foreign and unrecognisable to its native people is not truly a home; it’s an imposed fiction.
This is an immensely tortured opinion to express. Cultures and people have been intermingling since practically time immemorial. Especially with nations such as Canada, England, and even America, they pull culture from a laundry list of differing peoples. Food, music, film, holidays, fashion, technology, transportation, the ****ing people themselves, etc.
You can still maintain a sense of national identity, particularly in a civic nation, and permit/tolerate other cultures. It functions actually, for the most part, especially nowadays. Ethic nations, plenty of times, have successfully made the transformation to a civic nation. Some countries are still heavily ethnically-oriented in their nationalism (Japan is a solid example) but there are pros and cons to being an exclusively ethnic nation. Hell, there are to a civic one. It is not, however, realistic to suggest that a false dichotomy (and socio-scientifically outdated point of view) about civic nations is an even remotely rational stance.
Worse, it’s spiritual prison.
Meaningless drivel that's desperate-looking.
cucks
As garden-variety as it gets.
If anyone takes you seriously on this board, they're absolutely ****ing brain-dead.