0
This is the problem with the way the public defines the identity of a people in a specific country. Its based more on just having citizenship, which completely runs in contradiction with how people have identified themselves over the age. This is because liberals and other scumbags have reduced the identity of a people to merely a social construct, instead of realizing it as a self-conscious and intrinsic value.
The Self-Conscious and Intrinsic value of a people's identity lies in the race-consciousness, which resonates and reflects itself from and towards the language and culture of a people. If one shares a similarity in language, culture, and ethnic background with only a margin of difference they share a similar self-conscious identity.
That said today's borders do not reflect this self-conscious identity which exists among certain peoples. Civic Nationalism is not a viable solution to identify someone's background, but only an illegitimate classification which the elitists and intellectuals of previous generations and this generation advocate for.
This was all done to open up the boundaries of nations to a global economy, which would be runned by powerful Plutocrats and Businessmen, who want to make as much money off this open-ended idea regarding national identity.
The ignorance and Fanaticism does not have to do with people who are merely speaking the truth, but those who wish to deny it by saying they are something when they are not. Most people do not realize that their identity is now open ended and can be liberally interpreted due to the fact that powerful and greedy men want to use you as an instrument for their money flow and power.
They in retrospect want to deride your true and authentic identity, and to undermine it by re-constructing it around a civic nationalism, which does not account for self-conscious or instrinsic meaning. You are not only advocating for an idea that runs contradictory with who you are, it negates a part of you, which is inclusively essential to your being.
The extent to which it is is unknown to me, but you can not state one side of the story and forget another. You are affirming the A is now B, when you have to affirm A as not equaling B, and thus only containing a part of B. It might be better off if you never mentioned that they are Jews, and just list them Europeans.
The term Ashkernazi seems to be of no use or meaning if they are already Europeans by default due to their partial European ancestry, linguistic ties, and cultural assimilation.
Jews are Jews and Europeans are Europeans, and if they are mixed then they are partially both to some extent or another. But A is not B if its only partially itself and B, and you can use the partial inclusion of B as an excuse to negate the A portion contained by B and within it.
Bookmarks