List of Nationalist Parties Worldwide

[infoterror]

List of Nationalist Groups (December 5, 2005)
[ INFOTERROR ]

Nationalism is organic rule, meaning that it occurs by the divisions which in parallel have been created by evolution. Each population is bound to a landmass, and that population is defined by the combined factors of race/ethnicity/heritage, language, and culture.

-+-

African
http://www.blackpanther.org/
http://www.theblacknationalist.com/

American
http://www.nationalistpartyusa.com/

American Nativist
http://www.anu.org/

American Southern
http://www.southernnationalist.org/

Australian
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/

Bangladeshi
http://www.bnpbd.com/

Brazilian
http://www.integralismo.com.br/

British
http://www.bnp.org.uk/

Chinese
http://www.kmt.org.tw/

French
http://www.frontnational.com/

German
http://www.npd.de/

Greek
http://www.hellas.org/

Indian
http://www.nazi.org/community/nations/india/
http://www.hindutva.org/
http://geocities.com/akhandbharat1947/

Indo-European
http://www.nazi.org/

Irish
http://irelandsown.net/

Japanese
http://www.nsjap.net/

Maltese
http://www.pn.org.mt/

Manx
http://www.manxman.co.im/mecvan/

Mexican
http://www.aztlan.net/

Quebecois
http://english.republiquelibre.org/

Russian
http://nationalism.org/

Scottish
http://www.snp.org/

Syrian
http://www.ssnp.com/

Tamil
http://www.tamilnation.org/

-+-

The term “nationalism”...raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

-+-

Produced by INFOTERROR group:
http://www.infoterror.com/
infoterror@fastmail.fm

[Helios Panoptes]

That plato.stanford article is pretty good.

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

Nationalism will not be tolerated in the World Socialist Revolution. :nono: Those nations who try to claim independence through nationalism will be crushed by socialist revolutionary internationalism.

[Jonathan]

@infoterror:
As a Mick, I must say that I'm less than impressed with the Irish site.


@Revolution_of_the_Mind:
What makes you so sure?

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

@Revolution_of_the_Mind:
What makes you so sure?

Well, nationalism is fanatical patriotism. It takes on a biased and conservative stance. As revolutionaries, we are not here to dogmatically and selfishly stick to a set of values that is beneficial to one nation. We seek to expand a progressive political ideology that is beneficial to all peoples around the globe i.e. world communism -- living collectively with international unity rather than acting independently. If we do allow nationalism in a world socialist revolution, there will be no positive outcome. Today, nations are destroying each other because of nationalism. Extreme nationalism leads to imperialism. Just look at Japan and United States as prime examples of extreme nationalism.

How can I be so sure? Well, because the masses generally working class and the poor, which make up the majority of the people in every nation, only care about one thing, and that is true emancipation -- to be free of racism, class difference, discrimination, etc. They want freedom. A Socialist Revolution is a movement towards that freedom.

The only principle of nationalism I accept is the willingness to sacrifice for a nation, but only when there is an imperial foreign invasion.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Your bolshevik buddies will all be hung when us nationalists take over.

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

Your bolshevik buddies will all be hung when us nationalists take over.

:confused:

I'll just sit back, smoke a Cuban cigar, and watch nationalism massacre itself.

[Lenny]

I'll just sit back, smoke a Cuban cigar, and watch nationalism massacre itself.Speaking of massacres:

----------
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-01-21/screens_feature-1.jpg
Bolivian military officers examine the body of the
recently-executed Ernesto "Che" Guevara, 1967.
----------

Communists! The above is your fate if you choose to follow your hero's path

[Jimbo Gomez]

:confused:

I'll just sit back, smoke a Cuban cigar, and watch nationalism massacre itself.

I've got about 5000 thoughts involving the stalinist purges popping up in my head all at once now. ;)

[Anarch]

Well, nationalism is fanatical patriotism. It takes on a biased and conservative stance. As revolutionaries, we are not here to dogmatically and selfishly stick to a set of values that is beneficial to one nation. We seek to expand a progressive political ideology that is beneficial to all peoples around the globe i.e. world communism -- living collectively with international unity rather than acting independently. If we do allow nationalism in a world socialist revolution, there will be no positive outcome. Today, nations are destroying each other because of nationalism. Extreme nationalism leads to imperialism. Just look at Japan and United States as prime examples of extreme nationalism.

How can I be so sure? Well, because the masses generally working class and the poor, which make up the majority of the people in every nation, only care about one thing, and that is true emancipation -- to be free of racism, class difference, discrimination, etc. They want freedom. A Socialist Revolution is a movement towards that freedom.

The only principle of nationalism I accept is the willingness to sacrifice for a nation, but only when there is an imperial foreign invasion.

Revolution_of_the_mind is a Jew, everyone.

[Anarch]

Your 'Australian Nationalism Information Database' (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~natinfo/) is run by a traitor and a government informant, infoterror. Just thought I'd mention that.

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

I'm sorry, but nationalism is born with a tormented spirit that is suicidal and self-destructive. The fate of nationalism is doomed with its own bullet to the head. Just like your Charlie Chaplin hero:

http://www.flashback.se/arkiv/gifs/deadcel/hitler.jpg

:rolleyes:

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

Revolution_of_the_mind is a Jew, everyone.

No, I'm not. Or do you just consider all anti-nationalists to be a jew? :confused: so with that logic, can I call you a Nigger Nazi? I think so. :rolleyes:

[Anarch]

That wasn't a joke. A Jew isn't necessarily someone who goes to a synagogue or has Jewish ancestry, revolution_of_the_mind. A Jew is a messianist. Messianism is the Jewish spirit. And that makes you... a Jew.

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

That wasn't a joke. A Jew isn't necessarily someone who goes to a synagogue or has Jewish ancestry, revolution_of_the_mind. A Jew is a messianist. Messianism is the Jewish spirit. And that makes you... a Jew.

Jew
n.
An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

I'm neither one of the definitions. But I understand your pro-white-nationalist definition of a "jew." So I guess I'm a "jew" in the eyes of a white nationalist. What is the world coming to? :confused:

[OVERWATCH]

The difference between a bellicose jingoist and a nationalist is significant and profound.

Tribalism is an innate characteristic of humankind, nationalism is a manifestation of that truth.

Furthermore, it's silly to label an anti-nationalist as a Jew, simply on basis of his professed anti-nationalist views.

Misguided, yes; necessarily a Jew? That is ridiculous non-logic.

[Ixtab]

Edited.edited.

[Ixtab]

Well, nationalism is fanatical patriotism.How so?

It takes on a biased and conservative stance.How so?

... are not here to dogmatically and selfishly stick to a set of values that is beneficial to one nation.1.]This presupposes that humanity has instrinsic value. That is an untenable assumption.
2.] Economic self-sufficiency and autonomous development, self-reliance in national defence, and political non-alignment -- essentially autarky -- are necessary if socialism is to be built in any country in a world of capitalism (conversely, the same would be necessary in a capitalist nation if the rest of the world were socialist). It's also needed to avoid the potentially catastrophic structural imbalances engendered by the extreme tensity of economic interdepdendence which exists under international (monopoly) capitalism.
3.] Communist revolutions always rest upon a "folk-nationalist" basis, the peculiarities of class struggle in each and every country, and not on an abstract internationalism.
4.] Lenin's main adjustment to Marxism was his theory of the uneven development of capitalism globally, which allows for the development of socialism "in one or several countries" (to borrow Lenin's words) rather than a simultaneous revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. The opposite conclusion, first made in Marx's The German Ideology, was arrived at in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, and was based on a diffusionist model, not taking into account the uneven political and economic development of capitalism in the era of monopoly capitalism as explained in Vladimir Lenin's writings.
Marx's analysis (on which "socialist internationalism" is based) applies to competitive, not monopoly, capitalism (which forms the basis, or justification, of communist nationalism).

living collectively with international unity rather than acting independently.The struggle for independence has historically been the motivating force of national-democratic and communist revolutions.

If we do allow nationalism in a world socialist revolution, there will be no positive outcome.That is an ahistorical assumption.

Today, nations are destroying each other because of nationalism.No, quite the reverse, actually; they are destroying one another because of monopoly capitalism -- i.e. bourgeois internationalism; big multinational corporations, the IMF, WTO, the World Bank, and so on.
The reaction to this McDonaldisation of the entire world is revolutionary nationalism.

Extreme nationalism leads to imperialism.Nowadays, imperialism (monopoly capitalism) is more internationalistic than anything else. In its infancy, it assumed a nationalistic character, but nowadays it is anything but. Monopoly capitalism, more than an abstract socialist internationalism, has conduced to the unity of mankind and the dissolution of borders. We are more internationally integrated & "multicultural" than ever before.
Thank (or condemn) capitalism for this.

[Jonathan]

Well, because the masses generally working class and the poor, which make up the majority of the people in every nation...
In certain western countries it is the middle-class who make up the majority, while the working-class are a minority.

only care about one thing, and that is true emancipation -- to be free of racism, class difference, discrimination, etc. They want freedom.
You can't say that for certain. Rousseau would disagree with you for example. "Freedom" comes well down the line after "survival" and "security" and "stability" etc.


A Socialist Revolution is a movement towards that freedom.
This is debatable too.

[jcs]

to be free of racism, class difference, discrimination, etc. They want freedom.
'Free from what?--Free for what?'

[Jonathan]

Jotunlock, is that Skinner in your Avatar?

[Ixtab]

In certain western countries it is the middle-class who make up the majority, while the working-class are a minority."Middle-class" and "working class" are not mutually exclusive; the terms come from two completely different classifcation systems; they can easily overlap. A worker in Marxist parlance is anyone who receives wages (sells his labour-power) and doesn't own means of production of his own; "middle-class", on the other hand, is a non-Marxist term defined arbitrarily in terms of income-level. It's quite possible for one to be of the working-class in the Marxist sense and of the "middle-class" in the non-Marxist sense. And it seems probable that the "middle-class" in the countries you refer to are only the majority in the above sense. (basically, the classificaiton system you are using is based on amount of income, whereas the classification system used by Marxists rests upon the source of income - in my mind a more concrete and less aribtrary system.)

[Jonathan]

"Middle-class" and "working class" are not mutually exclusive; the terms come from two completely different classifcation systems; they can easily overlap. A worker in Marxist parlance is anyone who receives wages (sells his labour-power) and doesn't own means of production of his own; "middle-class", on the other hand, is a non-Marxist term defined arbitrarily in terms of income-level. It's quite possible for one to be of the working-class in the Marxist sense and of the "middle-class" in the non-Marxist sense. And it seems probable that the "middle-class" in the countries you refer to are only the majority in the sense indicated. (basically, the classificaiton system you are using is based on amount of income, whereas the classification system used by Marxists rests upon the source of income - in my mind a more concrete and less aribtrary system.)
That's fair enough. But even in the other (Marxist) sense (Working-class Vs Bourgeoisie), several western countries have seen a marked increase in the size of the traditional "Bourgeoisie" at the expense of the "working-class" population. Wouldn't you agree?

[Ixtab]

Jotunlock, is that Skinner in your Avatar?Yes.

That's fair enough. But even in the other (Marxist) sense (Working-class Vs Bourgeoisie), several western countries have seen a marked increase in the size of the traditional "Bourgeoisie" at the expense of the "working-class" population. Wouldn't you agree?Yes, though our reasons probably differ.

[Jonathan]

Yes.
Sorry, I didn't see the quote in your sig. when I posted the question. I must say, I'm a fan myself.

Yes, though our reasons probably differ.
What are your reasons?

[Revolution_of_the_Mind]

Jotunlock:

Keep in mind though, I am talking about today's nationalism, not "revolutionary" nationalism.

How so?

Nationalism is the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other. That is fanatical patriotism (i.e. today's nationalism) Wouldn't you agree that that's a very one-sided standpoint?

1.]This presupposes that humanity has instrinsic value. That is an untenable assumption.
2.] Economic self-sufficiency and autonomous development, self-reliance in national defence, and political non-alignment -- essentially autarky -- are necessary if socialism is to be built in any country in a world of capitalism (conversely, the same would be necessary in a capitalist nation if the rest of the world were socialist). It's also needed to avoid the potentially catastrophic structural imbalances engendered by the extreme tensity of economic interdepdendence which exists under international (monopoly) capitalism.
3.] Communist revolutions always rest upon a "folk-nationalist" basis, the peculiarities of class struggle in each and every country, and not on an abstract internationalism.
4.] Lenin's main adjustment to Marxism was his theory of the uneven development of capitalism globally, which allows for the development of socialism "in one or several countries" (to borrow Lenin's words) rather than a simultaneous revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. The opposite conclusion, first made in Marx's The German Ideology, was arrived at in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, and was based on a diffusionist model, not taking into account the uneven political and economic development of capitalism in the era of monopoly capitalism as explained in Vladimir Lenin's writings.
Marx's analysis (on which "socialist internationalism" is based) applies to competitive, not monopoly, capitalism (which forms the basis, or justification, of communist nationalism).

I understand this..but the nationalism I'm talking about is the idea of "White Supremacy" like the Nazi's, skinheads, or European Egocentrism, "Black Supremacy" like the Black Panthers, or religious supremacy like Conservative American Christians (fundamentalists), Muslim extremists etc. This type of nationalism is against Communist/Socialist Revolution. Of course, if we were to take over United States and make transition from a capitalist state to a socialist state, a new type of nationalism will emerge ..."Revolutionary nationalism" like Stalin and the Soviets or Fidel and the Fidelistas. Their fight for the revolutionary cause was not progressive if they stuck to the old nationalist system. During WW1, when Russia and Germany fought, Lenin didn't agree with the Russian patriotism of the people. Lenin instead wanted the soldiers to turn their guns towards their own soldiers, in turn, creating a civil war - a war against the tsar and the bourgeouisie.

The struggle for independence has historically been the motivating force of national-democratic and communist revolutions.

Yes, but you have to understand that national-democratic and socialist/communist revolution are polar opposites. The American Revolution (national-democratic) struggled for independence from British rule. And since then the Americans have focused more on nationalism than democracy. Their pride lead to imperalism. In the Russian Revolution, it was a struggle to end tsarism and the bourgeouisie; to create a system that is beneficial to the masses, not just a specific group. A socialist/Communist Revolution is the struggle for true independence for the masses that are oppressed by those detrimental political systems.

No, quite the reverse, actually; they are destroying one another because of monopoly capitalism -- i.e. bourgeois internationalism; big multinational corporations, the IMF, WTO, the World Bank, and so on.
The reaction to this McDonaldisation of the entire world is revolutionary nationalism.

you're right, but you can't just say that they are only destroying each other because of monopoly capitalism. After 9/11, Americans started hating the Middle East as a people. They didn't give 2 shits if they were Persians, Hindus etc. They hated them because of their religion, because of their customs, because of their lifestyle, the list goes on. Face it, Americans think they are the pearl in the oyster of which is the world. That is holding such extreme nationalism. That's where all these ruthless bourgeouis industries come into play.

Nowadays, imperialism (monopoly capitalism) is more internationalistic than anything else. In its infancy, it assumed a nationalistic character, but nowadays it is anything but. Monopoly capitalism, more than an abstract socialist internationalism, has conduced to the unity of mankind and the dissolution of borders. We are more internationally integrated & "multicultural" than ever before.
Thank (or condemn) capitalism for this.

Yes, I agree that capitalism/imperialism have greatly influenced the rise of multiculturalism, but it has also created social, racial, and cultural inequality and injustice. Socialist internationalism's primary goal is to subdue it. Why do you think there is such inequality and injustice? Because of the ambitiously competitive atmosphere capitalism creates; it pollutes nature with greed, lust, envy, egocentricity, ethnocentricity, etc. And all this goes hand in glove with nationalism.

Shane:

In certain western countries it is the middle-class who make up the majority, while the working-class are a minority.

In high income countries like the United States, yes, the majority are middle class. Middle Class (excluding all self-employed and investors) is looked as "working class" in these high income countries. This is what I believe.

You can't say that for certain. Rousseau would disagree with you for example. "Freedom" comes well down the line after "survival" and "security" and "stability" etc.

Yeah, that is a given in revolution. I didn't want to go into every bit of detail to explain my point.

[Ixtab]

Nationalism is the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other. That would more properly be called a specific type of nationalism, namely national chauvinism, or bourgeois nationalism.
It is not the weapon itself which is reactionary, but he who wields the weapon. Whereas, for instance, the arms of imperialist states are the symbol of war and plunder, the arms of socialist states are the symbol of peace and prosperity. To firmly hold the gun is to ensure national dignity. In like manner, just as bourgeois internationalism (globalisation) has nothing in common with proleterian internationalism barring its global character, so bourgeois nationalism has nothing in common with proleterian or "folk-nationalism", as I call it,--the nationalism of the oppressed--except in so far as it takes the nation as the basic unit for the integretation and unity of peoples (often against a perceived enemy). Nationalism, like the gun, is a weapon used by revolutionaries and counterrevulutionaries alike.
You surely wouldn't deny that the nationalism and internationalism of the bourgeoisie are very much complementary, and that often, one is the product and manifestation of the other; the same, however, is just as true, I believe, as regards proletarian nationalism and internationalism, and I will let history speak for itself on that score. To safeguard the dignity of the nation--to champion the cultural heritage, political and economic rights of the indigenous peoples of the world against all forms of imperialist penetration and domination--is the best form of resistance to imperialism and bourgeois internationalism in the world to-day.

I understand this..but the nationalism I'm talking about is the idea of "White Supremacy" like the Nazi's, skinheads, or European Egocentrism, "Black Supremacy" like the Black Panthers, or religious supremacy like Conservative American Christians (fundamentalists), Muslim extremists etc.Again, that would more properly be called chauvinism--national, racial, or religious. Nationalism can but need not be chauvinistic.


After 9/11, Americans started hating the Middle East as a people. They didn't give 2 shits if they were Persians, Hindus etc. They hated them because of their religion, because of their customs, because of their lifestyle, the list goes on. Face it, Americans think they are the pearl in the oyster of which is the world. That is holding such extreme nationalism. That's where all these ruthless bourgeouis industries come into play.This is because the United States government and media are controlled by Israelites, who view Arabs as their natural enemy. The War in Iraq was about securing a safe environment for Israel.

Yes, I agree that capitalism/imperialism have greatly influenced the rise of multiculturalism, but it has also created social, racial, and cultural inequality and injustice.In a way, yes; probably because when you have two races at the opposite extremes of the racial spectrum, whose traits and customs are deeply contrasted, antagonism is bound to ensue.
This doesn't stop Capitalism from importing more immigrants for cheep labour, and promoting multiculturalism to appeal to the widest possible audience in the selling of capitalist merchandise.

Socialist internationalism's primary goal is to subdue it.It should do so without ignoring the importance (spiritual, cultural, whatever you want to call it) of the ethnic component of human society.