Nationalism and secularism

[kılıç_mehmet]

Nationalism, in itself, is the opposite pole of two things: monarchism and theocratic rule.

Nationalism is not necessarily the polar opposite of monarchism. In some cases, such as the Italian Unification, it helped nationalism along on its way.

If you support separate nations for separate peoples, do you support the Kurdish Independence movement?

Indeed, but it still puts an emphasis on being of the *same* people, the goal was national unification. In that case, look at Greece. Nationalism had paved the way for a revolt against the Ottoman empire, but they still wanted to be ruled by someone of noble blood, so they asked the western nations for a king. However the nationalists within the ruling body, the parliament still conflicted with the King on many terms, particularly those aligned with Venizelos.

For Kurdish independence I can say as much as this: I would not oppose their national independence if it did not conflict with out national goals.
However, I know that their independence is for now, not possible.
If they seek independence outside of the borders of what I consider to be a part of the lands of Turan, I would not oppose them, but supporting them would certainly put me at odds with someone else.

We've yet to discover a system that accounts completely and indefinitely for the needs and happiness of its people at the same time as preventing sabotage by human nature.
Fact.

Well, I think nationalism is a suitable alternative, as it unites people by common tongue, ethnicity and culture.
Sabotage by human nature can be dealth through laws.