[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Heritage is the most unmovable part of someone's identity. Inherited intelligence, inherited traits, inherited character, inherited abilities.. and disabilities. The movable part is one's achievements through life, acquired characteristics

Heritage is much part of one's identity. Inherited character, inherited intelligence, inherited traits, inherited culture, inherited abilities and disabilities. You name it. The other part is acquired.

What makes a man's identity is a combination of inherited and acquired characteristics, of which the inherited make up his ethnic (national) identity.

As you see, nothing vague about it.

It's a word that can have many definitions and in that sense vague.

Culture is not inherited, it is acquired anyway.

Citizenship is a jacobine, artificial concept which seeks to destroy national identity through substitution.

Any stranger to a nation can become a citizen of the country which represents that nation. When someone, purposedly or not, confuses country with nation and citizen with nationality, chaos follows suit.
They do not have a national identity, they have a confused identity. There is an important difference there. As I said above, if you confuse nation with country/state, chaos follows suit.

You misunderstood me.

Institution of citizenship is a necessary part of the structure of any nation. How members of the nation be distinguished from foreigners otherwise?

It is the purpose of nationalists to construct meaningful criteria for the obtainment of citizenship. That is what this thread is all about.

I agree that disloyal individuals should not be eligible for citizenship.

Not pretty much but totally impossible. I could integrate in a country which offered certain ethnic affinities to mine. But I could never become one of the nation. I would be a citizen, but my nation would still live inside me. Even if did not exist anymore. As you can see, national identity is more spiritual than material.

Of course.

I don't see how this is a problem. Britain has always been hostile to Europe in any of its forms. In recent times Britain has been an outpost of America in Europe. The center of American spionage, both political and commercial, is in Britain. Every proposal by Britain in the EU must be distrusted, as it is often to serve American (actually, Anglo-American) interests. Atlantism is one such interest, contrary to European interests.

I still don't understand what kind of difference do you make between European and non-European countries as you are a nationalist opposed to Pan-Europeanism. Hispanic former colonies are culturally more related to Spain than countries of Northern Europe.

Nonesense. Their economic input is years light insufficient to cover up such costs.

It is precisely to economic input of working immigrants which is used to offset the costs of immigrants on welfare.

Unrealistic as that is. The Patriotic Conservatives (which you continously mistake as anything Nationalist) will too try to attract the votes of the immigrant population. Not that I can see the future on a crystal ball.. in fact they already do it.

Patriotic Conservatism is not anymore an alternative to Nationalism.

What you will see is an 'x' generation of immigrants and natives (both leftists and 'patriotics') on the one side, and a minority of anti-immigration nationalists on the opposite side. Not too dissimilar to the present, is it?

That is the scenario of defeat. What is the most probable scenario of victory?

Either you didn't understand my statement, or you don't know how market economies function.

I am very familiar with market economics.