What is a Polish Nationalist?

I don't even know what a nationalist is period. But what is a Polish nationalist?

Have you heard of google & wikipedia? They're probably the best starting sources for research.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

Anti-german for sure.Sometimes anti-Russian and of course catholic.

A nationalist is commonly someone who holds his nation above all others (a quite natural state of mind I would say. What only was made "political incorrect" in some circles during the last years, wrongly I might add!).

But southern....that also means anti-anyone who is perceived as a threat, regardless nationality, race or religion.
Not automatically pro-slavic or automatically anti-german...the former is rather a slavicist and the latter probably a racist! ;)

I saw some where that there are Nationalist groups who commit terrorist attacks.
Are their many Polish groups? What are their names?

Yes,there are.They regularly crash with anti-fa.Sometimes radical right wings from other countries call Poles for help because Poles are regarded among the most hardcore.

Here is an srticle from earlier in the month which discusses nationalism and what it means in different contexts.
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/nationalism-label-self-determination

Nationalism has become the N-word

The civic self-determination movements of the SNP and Plaid Cymru don't deserve the same label as far-right racists

Quite correct...The nationalist puts his nation first, and works toward it's well being...As an American of Polish descent, I put America's welfare first in my consciousness...If I moved to Poland, I would put Poland first, even though I would be a product of the American culture.

Nationalism is very positive, but in an age of 'globaliztion' and 'multi-culturalism' and 'trans national corporations', the nation is considered obsolete by profiteers and 'inconvenient' by bureaucrats...Of course, this is a huge miscalculation.

Actually, only one nationalism is considered 'politically acceptable' in the West.

Nation was considered obsolete for a long time. Nations go against progress. Did Egyptians have a "nation"? It's a relatively knew concept and not really a healthy one.

On the contrary, national sovereignty and statehood are so important and Brits know this. Nations do not go against progress, they progress in their own way. You are going against the whole idea of culture and individuality.

We must defend the last bastions of national identity and not fall into the trap of the globalists.

Well, let's eliminate the obsolete State of Israel first...Certainly the most troublesome and non productive one...Agreed?

We all know the nations are not going away. It's so engrained in our psyches, we would be in chaos without the idea that we have a nation with definitive boundaries.

It's counterproductive, because, the concept can be used as a deterent to cooperation. It can also be used as a tool for progress if people let it, because the nation promotes stability, to a certain extent.

"Ingrained in our psyches" because of millennias of development are even more so tribalism and racism.
Many people can't even discern between the relatively new concept of "nationalism" and the age old feeling of belonging to a tribe, to a race - for them it is the same or interchangable!

The reason for uncounted bloodbaths in that relatively short time...tribal brothers killing each others in the name of their new nations!

That's why I see the EU as a progress...we are going back to our tribal roots (more or less).
We white Europeans are more or less of the same tribe and the same race...no more borders and no more wars (hopefully).

As a deterrent to cooperation? Look, many didn't accede to the EEC (EU) in 1957 yet still cooperated on different fronts. Stability? Please comment on the compatibility of the common law, which fully embraces national precepts and customs, with EU Law which has a position of supremacy under Costa Vs ENEL. Please outline the limits of legislative competence and the interplay of 3 key sources of law.

It's very similar. The nation helps because it defines the borders and they are clear. It helps in that area. With the tribe and race, you have no borders, so you might fight more with members of other tribes and races.

However, it hampers cooperation, when you think your nation is best and all others are inferior to you.


I don't want to upstage you, Seanus.

I must apologize for my 'slightly sarcastic' comment about the Israelis.

The greater point is this: On this earth, we have the good and the bad...The foundation of any society is the family, and then the nation...By 'seeking' to eliminate either of these, you go against nature.

Rather, we take the good and the bad, and seek co-operation where we can, and when we can't find it, we go on with life...Modern 'mega bureaucracies' like the EU, seek to 'force' the issue, many time by passing legislation and bills that may be 1000 pages long and can only be analyzed by a squad of lawyers...All this does is provide employment for paper pushers...We have worse in the USA, everyone on the government payroll, controlled from the top, losing the spirit of independence and self-sufficiency.

We can have a relatively peaceful society without blotting out the distinction between nations...Rather, 'variety is the spice'.

Do you know the number 1 reason for most wars and killings and destruction in Europe over the centuries (even before religion)? It's those f*ucking borders!

Jailed into borders is not the natural state for the Europeans, wandering and roaming freely is!

(Even today the war in the ME is about those f*ucking borders). Maybe you in the US can't compare how it is having your natural environment being split up, taken away, claimed by some "border".


There are many, many nations who fight each other...there are only a few tribes (Celts, Slavs, Germanics) in Europe and only one race (White)...

Where do you think the danger of going to war against each other proofed more true?

When was the last nation war?
When was the last tribal war?
When was the last race war?

...says all, doesn't it!

Upstage me, what do you mean? I am an EU major and want to discuss this with you.

Very good point above btw, in relation to borders, PP. Tribes were nomadic and freely moved, raiding and pillaging all the while. For better or for worse, nations developed borders and, to prevent chaos, were largely accepted. We have remedies for disputes, whether it be courts, tribunals or ADR.

PP, you still seem to miss a few key things. Britain was a proud and imperialistic nation for quite some time. Their vested interests were key to their modus operandi. Having said that, they have shown commitment to the EU and have gone against their misgivings in order to capture the spirit of it. Just look at how the Iron Lady, Thatcher, was turned around by her Ministers. She was against the ceding of sovereignty to Brussels but the ERM became a reality just 2 years after she stepped down. The impetus was huge and she couldn't stem the tide of those striving towards Maastricht in 1992.

If you want to get into a Sovereignty Vs Supranationalism debate, be my guest as this will crop up and indeed has popped up in America with regards to the SSP or NAU between Mexico, Canada and America. You will see it in due course.

But, why do we need distinctions? Can you stop people from going where they want? Should you?


We move freely here. We have states but our society is very mobile. You are not urged to stay in one state your entire life, you don't have the cultural variances or the language stopping you. Everyone is pretty much the same, the language is, mostly, English (sometimes it's Spanish, rarely, it's French). It's easy to move around.

The European tribes haven't had borders for that long...there were empires...but is that the same as having borders? They shifted from time to time. Empires came and went. While, the nation has a definitive border that, ideally, stays constant for a longer period of time.

Maybe you are correct, BB. In Europe, the continent prevails and there shouldn't be an emphasis on nation states. Europeans should move freely throughout the continent, ideally. It is natural. The fighting happens when people put up walls and say "we don't want you here".

That's what I meant!
Just leave it at that that we in Europe plan to have something similiar (much more spices in this european dish) soon and that this is progress to our "border-past" :)


Or as in: "You are from another nation so we don't want you here even as you are from my tribe and my race!"

Europeans need to leave that thinking behind, ASAP!

I consider myself a Polish patriot but I only meet one of these requirements.
I'm neither anti-German nor anti-Russian (unless they try to mess with Poland).

Being a Polish patriot, I consider the term "Polish" to signify citizenship and civilization
(also language to some extent) rather than ethnicity. That's why I include Ukrainians,
Belorussians and Lithuanians in my definition of "polishness" (I consider the First
Rzeczpospolita to be more of a real Poland, in its historical and civilizational borders,
than the current Polish state deprived of its eastern territories).

If you limit your patriotism to a single ethnic group and do not consider it in
historical and civilizational terms, it can only lead to a disaster (as the 20th
century history taught us).

You gotta have it, because everyone is different.

On the mobile issue, Europe does need this because it is a fairly compact continent, and most of the peoples share a heritage...No reason why travel shouldn't be easier.

But, when you get mass immigration, like here in the US, where we have over 20 MILLION Mexicans coming in the last 15 years, along with huge numbers of Asians, Africans, Indians etc, there is a problem, because, with the state of the economy, WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO SUPPORT THEM, let alone our own people.

You also have this problem in the UK, France and somewhat in Germany.

In my opinion to really have a chance on countering this danger of being swamped by non-european tribes is to rediscover our common european roots.

This infighting is insane in the face of those external dangers and only weakens us and opens everybody the doors.

I would call myself a european patriot, I think that's our only future!

*steps down from box*

We all see the grey/gray areas here. Critical is not imposing labels. I am neither a Europhile nor a Europhobe as coined by the media 20 years ago or more. I am not an ardent proponent of national sovereignty though I broadly support many of their postulates. I also see the merits of collectivisation, albeit on a more limited scale. The main thing is democracy. The voting procedure in Europe is far from ideal and I see the shortcomings. There is overlap, we shouldn't look at mutual exclusivity too much.

A Polish nationalist can be defined in the same way as any other nationalist.

we share a continent
Should they be denied living here? After all, we share a continent. What about Canadians? Should they be denied lving here because they are simply Canadian? You want to have it one way for Europe because "they share a heritage" and another way for the US. We do share a heritage with Mexicans and Canadians, as well as South Americans, for that matter. The two continents were colonized in much the same way.

If it's okay for Europe, our parent, then, why isn't it okay for us?

It's the way it is done, PP. The global elites shape it, not the people. Canadians are firmly against any ceding of sovereignty. Closer ties are desirable but it doesn't have to be done by tampering with formal apparatus.

Always an excuse

oOo(we share a continent)

What excuse? Please outline the voting process within the EU institutions, PP. Please explain to me why they couldn't accept the 'no' vote of the Irish of the Lisbon Treaty?

If the natives were organized and had shared a common awareness I doubt the settlers would had been so successful.
As it was the native indian Americans (north AND south) were as hostile, infighting and splitted up between each other as was Europe.
Easy game!

Well spoken.