Just thought I would add a nationalist section to talk about the ideology as there was a liberal section on the forum.

Linsell (2001) “Nationalists are concerned for the wellbeing of there nation. The vast majority of people feel an instinctive attachment to a nation and are concerned to see it survive and prosper. In this sense most people are nationalists. Political nationalists see nations and national identity as central to their political thinking and outlook on life. Gender class and race are all secondary considerations because nationality is greater than all of those things. For a nationalist, nationality is the widest communal identity, and the one that is central to any valid claim for the right to self government. The primary concerns of nationalists are the attainment or preservation of national unity, national identity, national independence, national self-government and the general wellbeing of their nation.”

Linsell, T., 2001. An English Nationalism, Norfolk, Athelney.

Please don’t post White Supremacist messages or links to Nazi Germany as it really is not relevant and generally goes around in circles.

If taken too far, nationalism causes double standards where all non-nationals are considered lesser people- subject to all manners of evil at the hands of nationals.
And when taken too far it ends up tied to a religion, race, or ideology... and attempts to force a heterogeneous culture.
Nationalism is an ideology that puts the collective over the individual, losing sight of the fact that society is nothing if not for individuals. And it sets arbitrary values to humans based on geographic location.

Loving your country is a good thing.
Making the nation your primary identity is another.
People are more free when they are individual humans. The nation-state is our toolbox, not our cage.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

I'm a staunch nationalist, but at the same time I recognize that it's more and more becoming outdated and the erosion of borders as we're seeing today will perhaps in our lifetimes lead to the end of nationalism as we know it.

An old Scottish socialist by the name of Jimmy Reed rather wisely remarked that nationalism is like electricity. There is good, positive electricity that when put to use saves and nurtures life like the electricity that powers a babies incubator. Conversely, there is bad, negative electricity that is used to end life like the electricity used to power the electric chair. In other words, nationalism can be either a progressive force for good and the precursor for freedom and liberty, or alternatively a reactionary force for bad depending upon where one is situated in the debate. In this way, a good positive form of nationalism is a nationalism that attempts to overthrow the tyranny and oppression of, for instance, the racist apartheid regime in South Africa as it once was. On the hand, a bad form of nationalism is the petty bourgiose nationalism perpetuated by those whose aim it is to undermine such resistance to authoratitive forms of power.

Nationalism and Capitalism are incompatible, conservatives are by definition transnational unpatriotic traitors who care more about how their share price in China is doing, rather than how the majority of Americans are doing.

Any preference on types of nationalism?

Civil nationalism where anyone can be a member of that nation despite of race, or historical background but the nation tries to link that nation through a form of community that shares perceptions and tries not promoting difference that fractures it.

True nationalism that takes all elements that defines the characteristics of members of that nation that affects the way that community operates. This form tends to believe that historical background is just as important as any other factor and tends to give priority or promotes what it believes are true members of that nation and the national values.

I believe nationalism is the best way to prevent internal conflict and enables the nation to seek its own interests without being restricted or prevented from doing so.

Here are two manifestos of two large parties that are quickly gathering support in the United Kingdom / Britain:

British national Party - This uses true nationalism but incorporates all the nations of Britain under one state rule with each major nation having its own parliament to seek its own national interests.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/minimanifesto2007.pdf

UKIP – This is a form of civil nationalism also incorporating all nations of Britain under one state rule with parliaments representing each major nation.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/images/stor...ifesto2005.pdf

"The only title superior to President of the United States of America......Citizen"

1935 Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America

I love my country, I hate the Government that is destroying it.

I've never heard this before but I think it's fairly true. I think there's a fine line between the two however, and I'm not sure that it's possible to keep "good nationalism" from becoming "bad nationalism" as soon as there's a foreign enemy or rival to focus on.

I've always taken a pretty negative view of nationalism in general because to me, it is an inherently unhealthy way to view the world. Patriotism and loving one's country are great and all and I'm not saying not to love your country and strive to see it be the best it can be, but we should all think of ourselves as human being first, THEN citizens of whatever.

Looking at things any other way is just a recipe for xenophobia.

How do you see the world and the state you live in?