[rerevisionist]

Some comments which I'm led to because of dissatisfaction at describing the BBC as 'state propaganda'.

It's easy to see why the BBC never, ever, allow debate on such issues as the 'Holocaust', war crimes in Vietnam, Jewish paper money, nuclear power and weaponry, third world immigration, EU corruption, tribal cults such as Judaism and Islam, and the situation where the entire intelligence system is under the thumb of someone who connived in phoney evidence leading to war. Because, respectively, cliques of Jews rant at them, the US military insists on lies, money Jews have power, physicists and the company monopolies insist, official EU policy is to force immigration and they won't tolerate debate, and so on. Things of that sort are, no doubt, of great importance, and I selected them because of that. However, the BBC equally will never, ever, allow debate on such issues as Shakespeare authorship, the case for Wallace having priority over Darwin in discovering evolution, whether the 'look say' method was a disaster, and innumerable other issues which seem small beer; why insist on censorshop of trivia?

The BBC clearly must have some sort of systematic list of interest groups, which automatically get priority. (Or possibly the administrators simply don't understand the issues and always take the line of least resistance). The BBC in effect broadcasts only the subset of official information accepted by all its interest groups. A bit like the common, central part of a Venn diagram, where all the circles intersect.

In this way, the BBC's output does not correspond with the state's interest - small internal groups, and also parts of large external groups, get far disproportionate air-time - Jews and immigrants illustrate the sort of thing.

One has to wonder whether the 'state' now, in effect, includes other subsets, and is not the way it used to be pictured.

I take it that empires in antiquity were something like states, with a system of control headed (pun more or less intended) by a fairly small number of, probably, men. And that a 'realm', 'royaume' etc was the same sort of thing, with an identifiable monarch. The word 'state' presumably comes from German - Stadt, meaning a town or perhaps principality, a relatively small thing; 'United States' being, as with united France, then Germany and Italy, similarly something identifiably unitary. In the past, legal systems, religious systems, trading systems etc have often not coincided geographically. There was and is a movement to make states coterminous with nations, though of course there are problems with definitions. Also of course many territories are large, too large for any spontaneous formation of a 'state', for example in Africa and Asia. The only exception seems to be China, which is more or less a single huge state in more or less defined country. And there is now a movement for internationalism, though so far this has been mainly a Jewish movement, and certainly has no benevolent intent. But this is partly fuelled by the fact that, with increasing science, it's obvious some products or skills have to come from other 'states'.

Is this just shuffling words? Is a 'totalitarian state' simply a euphemism for an area controlled from outside? Is there some minimum proportion of people needed to keep forcible control? -- Is there some analysis which clarifies these issues?

[FirstClassSkeptic]

"A state is a conquered people."

I forget who said that.

[rerevisionist]

There has been a huge movement, propelled by 'Jews', against 'nations', especially white nations. 'Jews' of course have their own system of fantasy. But many seriously-minded people have been anti-nation; H G Wells is a good example. And IF nations cause wars, that, as far as it goes, makes a serious case against nations. So does the argument that war is too destructive now - but this site insists the limits are less than has been publicised. And it's now understood by many people that the causes of wars are not as simple as was widely believed in (say) 1914.

I'd like to make the case here for 'nations' simply as convenient administrative units. Most modern 'nations', as their opponents point out, have a largely bogus, manufactured, made-up element - Britain for example was formed progressively by accident when several royal families assumed power. France was re-invented by Chauvin's exaggerations. Italy and Germany formed from the unification of local regions - in fact, the main idea was to become a 'nation'. The USA still calls itself 'United States'. African countries are all more-or-less made up, many with boundaries imposed or defined by Europeans. Parts of China supposedly are defined by a wall. Islands often fit only with difficulty into 'national' schemes - the Canaries are partly British and Spanish, Corsica is sort of French, Eire isn't the same as Britain, Iceland has its own language, and so on.

But the great advantage of 'nations' is analogous to the advantage of having named towns, roads, districts, boundaries, fences, walls - 'Good fences make good neighbours' is allegedly a Spanish proverb; and nations cut down on certain types of dispute. Modern pro-white parties in the USA, Canada, Europe and ANZ call themselves 'nationalist', I think really for want of a better name. They might do better to emphasise rather dull practical benefits such as who has some right to belong where. Particularly as there have been huge technical changes in the possibilities of control over people.

This is NUKELIES being anti-nationalist -

I've always seen nationalism as vulgar. I don't cast myself out as an outsider, but if I am one I don't really care much. That's what I'm getting at about the Jews, and the conspiracy theorists who want me to join their shaky "anti-semitic" crusade, and Blacks who want reparations, and Americans waving their flag around after 9/11, and "gays" and "straights" fighting over "gay" "marriage," and illegal alien Mexicans and Pakistanis thinking they have a right to U.S. and U.K. land,

But most of his examples aren't national at all, but involve some subgroup - Jews, blacks, illegals, queers (traditional British expression), war profiteers. I don't have a general solution to the problem of minimising violence, or maximising happiness, or maximising the diversity needed to decide competitively between human societies; but 'nations' have been unfairly denigrated, imho largely by Jewish-backed intellectual phonies.

[Cowan Bellarmino]

As long as there are active proponents of utopias on earth, there will be wars. The banking cartel certainly has created their own utopia today. Unfortunately, their utopia just so happens to be hell for most.

Interesting point you make about the USA. It was Lincoln, widely regarded as the nation's first Caesar in certain circles, that forcefully ended the Confederate States' attempt to make a new nation. You see, the Confederates believed that they could voluntarily leave an agreement that they voluntarily entered and so they seceded. After the War between the States was over, the 14th Amendment was passed, effectively absorbing all citizens into the new leviathan of the USA. Prior to the War, a person considered their State to be their Nation. For example, Robert E. Lee considered his nation to be Virginia and not the United States of America. They ask a certain question at the beginning of all tours of the United Nations building. The tour guide will have each person state what their nation is. Most Americans on this tour will say "the US" or "America." Some of us stubborn ones still say our State is our nation.

Currently, we have a president who rhetorically is advocating being a Citizen of the World. He is following the lead of his predecessors in this new secular age. Of course, what is never mentioned is that this new World Nation will have one financial foundation. "We are all one" and certain variants is the motto. This is impossible of course, and results in disaster because there are natural inclinations for man to separate himself along ethnic/language and cultural lines. Hence you have balkanization within national boundaries that formerly didn't have this problem. It makes it very easy for the cartel to control these vassals as there is a natural distrust between different cultures.

[Sorensen731]

Blood.
That word was censored with the "Genetics" psyop, a terrible non-event (no real benefit) that moved the discussion from blood and nationalism to a worldwide we are one humanism/marxism.
Before the nightmare of genetics propaganda, it was known knowledge was passed through the blood, specially in guilds and jobs like glass making, painting, military thinking...

In politics you have people, and leaders, I will start with the people, continue with the leaders and end with war.
In a nation you are third/forth cousin with everybody. How many Rodriguez are there? They must come from a Rodrigo (-ez is like Russian -ich son of...). So from the same family a brother went to Chile, had 20 sons, all of them Rodriguez, and at home, Spain, the brother who stayed had another 10 kids who spread over several cities.
That means we have common ancestors, we think similarly, we can understand each other, we can work together pretty well, we have the same mind structure, our thinking patterns are close, the brain like the nose is inherited.

Now with leaders. A leader will speak externally with a language and internally with a brain structure, his ideas will be first in his mind, and then he will try to materialize them with words or actions.
Foreigners will only see the external words, but his "brothers" or those with common ancestors will be able to follow his thoughts and understand him.

An example, foreigners have trouble getting jokes.

Finally war, you have the right to have a good leader that fights for the common shared principles of all, at home you can be a painter or a martial artists, part of you is unique but another part is shared (ancestry). You want stability, order, decency, security, beauty...
He who is better able to detect the shared wants and fight for them has the right to rule and the people have the right to have him as ruler.

A ruler could be understood as the center of a circumference, he should be related to every point (by blood) and all the points should be similar, if the circle was made of metal chains, a wooden one would be a weak point.
Foreigners are a threat and make it impossible for a set of people to ruler themselves.
They shouldn't have the same rights and privileges.

That is a nation, people joined by blood, with our senses wee see only the present, but in a nation we are joined through the common past and through a limited thinking patterns, Europeans may be vegetarians, or love hunting..but they won't eat dogs.
We have a spectrum of choices, this one or that other, but always within a understandable boundary.

A ruler is always a fighter, that's why military men use to rule, they are willing to die for their ideas and are not afraid of fights it i's for a good cause. (That's also why men should be in power as it has always been, and it's better for all of us).
A ruler has the destiny of many in his hands, a great trust, a lot of power, he will attract attention, foreigners, enemies and thieves will try to use him, to manipulate him, he must be strong, a strong man.
The system attacks the military and manhood, power is evil it's their message, we should not ask or demand or even allow protection!

State is bigger than nation, a good leader could and should unite, as tribes did in times of war or need or when someone extraordinary appear.
Americans expressed it correctly, if the leader is unworthy, takeover by a better leader is legitimate.
It would be better if a non-violent system was designed to detect future good leaders, unstoppable, incorruptible, full of valor and energy to fight for the common good and inspire other to do the same.
I think SS was close to that, from all over Europe, money, nobility, past, doesn't matter (only that you are European and not foreigner), anybody could join and escalate. And languages and traditions were protected.
It was more a takeover by more clever and informed leaders who knew what the problems were (usury, fifth columns of masonry, marxists, zionists all obeying the same power), had a plan (national economy, free of usury and based on work instead of money), and a will to fight compromising all his country resources to it, so others could join imitating them, as many countries did.

[Sorensen731]

After the War between the States was over, the 14th Amendment was passed,

And after Lincoln had been murdered (April 1865).
Correct if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 14th proposed June 13, 1866 ?

[Cowan Bellarmino]

^ Yes, proposed on that date. No Southern State (except Tennessee) ratified it until after the Feds successfully imposed Reconstruction upon them - that is, they took over their legislatures by force!

This little tidbit of US history is hardly ever discussed.

[rerevisionist]

'Tribes' are supposed to have rules to maintain their genetic diversity. Or at least this is a modern way of wording it. There are sone examples in Baker's book on Race. So children for example are allowed to pick their new mates, but only from limited range of potential mates. In this way, distributions of strength, intelligence, quickness, long-term planning, handiness, ability to tolerate boredom, and the full range of human variation is more-or-less maintained. (The first time I saw an explicit statement that specialisation is part of human inheritance was in a book by Joan Robinson - I think women are less inclined than men to think they can do anything). My personal guess is that there's a deep-rooted division in people between those who are static and have a feeling for home, and nomads - perhaps based on millennia of farming as opposed to animal husbandry, and/or some periodicity in climate. A 'nation' can reasonably be expected to be a collection of people of the same type - race, language, variability, range of achievements, interests. Sorensen731 estimates a nation is made up of 3rd or 4th cousins, though I'm not sure about that figure. But there's no doubt the limited range of surnames in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, larger but limited in England, points that way. There is something to be said for some people in a group being slow-witted as they can tolerate boring tasks better; and for some who are decisive, as well as some who take a long-term view, because some decisions have to be made rapidly. Sorensen731 mentions specialisation - there's a passage in Parkinson on medieval guilds which says much the same. Obviously childbirth is a specialised function too. Strange how all this is made to seem outdated, or has simply been forgotten or erased.

It's interesting to speculate about genetic laws imposing limits. For example, Jews and (now) Pakistani tribes practised inbreeding and had high rates of birth defects, suggesting tribes were too small, or perhaps too humane. The caste system suggests there are limits to full tribal sizes, after which there's fragmenting into non-communicating groups. Ease of travel must have made migration and wars easier. Maybe there are undiscovered mathematical laws at work.