Why don't people die for their nations anymore?
The security of the state was everything back then. Today it's just a fly ticket.People change countries like it means nothing to them.
Because you keep using nation, state and country as synonyms.
>>331551
They may not be exactly the same, but they share the same meaning.
>>331544
Why should i throw away my life so some shitty government decision against another government. Hell, why should i kill another man because my government disagrees with his.
>>331544
Because they realise the leaders of their country are cynical sociopaths who don't give a shit about them or their suffering, and who will continue to live in luxury even when they're being mass murdered on the battlefield
Not even a leftie c.uck, but if you think citizens of western countries would fight for the state in >the current year then you're hopelessly delusional
Everyone hates the elite nowadays
People do die for their countries. The Muslims are very much passionate about dying. The Tibetans have been self-sacrificing to bring light to their conditions. However the external force/distraction/pleasures is too much for most people to give notice.
i srsly hope you dont do this
Individualism is why
>>331562
You shouldn't, TODAY. But think about, for example, the Spartans, they only cared about protecting Sparta,each other,there was a sense of belonging and self-righteousness. They didn't give a shit about the meaning of life because they created their own. Today, governments don't represent you as they did. But my question is, would you have thrown away your life back then?
>>331592
That's because Spartans were indoctrinated from birth to live and die for Sparta.
>>331591
Is individualism destroying civilization then?
Is there an individual-community? Like, right now we are sharing anonymously and individually and discussing a common topic, is this the peak of the so called community of our time?
>>331597
But you were indoctrinated to serve and like your country too, and you don't, because you realize the hypocrisy.
>>331592
They also were ostracised from society if they failed in battle and did not die fighting; it certainly wasn't an ideal life unless you have a fetish for strict order and combat
>>331611
Was I? Did I?
>>331575
>Because they realise the leaders of their country are cynical sociopaths who don't give a shit about them or their suffering
Question. Why is power so centralized,(specially in democracy)?
Why don't we have a decent, worthy leader?
The World Wars shattered the mythical ideals of dying gloriously in battle.
>Why would a French baker want to kill a German shoemaker?
>>331603
I wouldn't say so. We just value our ego more than other ideas atm
>>331622
Yes, all those history classes that told you how great George Washington was ( Or your country equivalent). All those pledges of allegiances you made in school,the local values your parents should have thought you. The common stuff basically. But in adulthood, everything changes, doesn't it?
>>331642
Why are you projecting so much?
>>331631
>atm
Do I hear revolution?
>>331654
Nay; I was just implying that societal values can change
>>331642
Plege of allegiance ? What's that ?
There are a ton of misconceptions about wars. Let's look at ww2.
>a massive majority of soldiers on the western front survived.
>all of them where being paid money
and on the eastern
>cowards were executed
>>331652
>projecting
We were going somewhere anon.I am disappointed .
>>331664
An American thing: "I swear upon the flag, that I shall die for freedom, I shall do as any patriot should; the flag is my glory, an Eagle of hope--amen"
>>331664
>>331678
Is that an old pledge of allegiance?
Also schools don't do the pledge anymore because edgelords got upset at the idea of indoctrination.
>>331678
Other countries do it though
>>331544
Massive disparages in wealth between countries, plus globalization and technology.
>>331660
I was getting excited for a moment
>>331678
And when are you supposed to say such a thing ? Looks weird to me, i'm not use to that level of patriotism
>>331693
>technology
explain now.
Also the distribution of wealth between countries is a good point, didn't thought about that.
>>331624
Because of this guy
Also, whatever democratic structures that western countries have had in place have been largely subverted by corporate interests, but the fact of the matter is that most people in a nation are easy to manipulate anyway.
Also, why do you think power is 'centralised' in democracies? The exact opposite is true, even with our modern joke of 'equality'
>>331678
>post korean war
>I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
earlier, founded from american civil war:
>We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country, one master race, one language, one flag!
>>331675
I'm not trying to refute you, just curious about your method. But no I was never indoctrinated into wanting to die for my country, the only war I was taught about was WW1 and how horrid it was for the soldiers on both sides. We learnt about Nazi Germany, but mainly about why it became Nazi (weakness of Weimar, anger over versailles etc). The closest thing to societal indoctrination would be English hero worship of soldiers, but I've never been that bothered by that.
>>331701
Before classes in school, you go to the yard with your classmates and swear to the flag. European countries used to do it, Argentina does too. I thought it was a normal thing. Where are you from?
>>331710
Because usually to change things in democracy you must have majority in the senate, which the power of shift has. The power changes every 4-8 years, true, but during that time they tend to have pretty much all the necessary power to overpower the opposition. Just like Hitler, nice example.
>>331675
I'm curious about you method of discussion; I'm not trying to refute you or anything.
But no, the most war-related history I learnt was about how horrible it was for the soldiers in the trenches, or a brief touching on the battle of Hastings. The only societal indoctrination was English hero worship of soldiers, but that never really persuaded me into dulce decorum est
>>331705
Technology is what allows globalization, yes in the sense of globalized production, but also in the sense of ease of communication and travel.
>>331544
Partly because our modern conceptions of self and individuality are different form older ones.
In ancient Rome, for example, you were only a "person" in the sense that you were part of the empire and played your part for its betterment. Without the empire and the social/familial connections it carried you had no "self." And there wasn't really such a thing as a completely autonomous individual because of this conception.
Fast forward to today, with our liberal Enlightenment-era values and our self and "personhood" is based entirely off individuality, which is expressed in the opposite way it was in Rome; today individuality is all about what you do that ISN'T tied to the government or community. It's about how you express yourself without acting for the interests of a greater community, and because of that pledging unyielding allegiance to a nation is considered stupid and is thought to be sacrificing your precious individuality and your sense of self.
Basically, we were taught to think of our selves, not our community. Whereas in ancient times they were taught that the self IS the community.
There are other reasons of course, but that's a major one.
>>331723
France.
You mean everyday you should say that ? Childrens swearing to die for their country, god i didn't know such things still existed in the western world, i've never heard of a european equivalent, seems backward and kinda barbaric to me ( reminds me of the hitlerian youth desu )
>>331716
Well, maybe it's a local thing. My country had plenty of people who died for liberation and such. Maybe the education here is like this to give us hope to change the buried wasteland it has become. Curious, what country are you from?
>>331754
No, I think you got it wrong, we never say we are willing to die for our country, we sing our national anthem and say some words out of respect for the iconic heroes and make an oath. But we never explicitly say we are dying for it, that's pretty crazy actually. That takes me back to the thread, why don't we die for our nations? Today it's weird to think of it, but in other circumstances it would have been worth it.
>>331764
The UK; in English class we had a unit on Wilfred Owen--a soldier-poet from (IIRC) WW1. He made poems against the idea of 'dying for your own country' and the likes. Google 'Dulce Decorum Est'.
I suppose the UK has never really had any wars against oppressors, so we've never had the ideology concreted in. Aside from the World Wars of course, but that was from our conscription propaganda.
>>331789
This makes me think that to be willing to die for your country depends on the circumstances . Die because of a selfish war? No. Die because one greedy politician tells you so? No. But dying for an idea is justified. Sad thing is, we don't have visionary selfless ideas anymore
>>331592
In the past if i was uneducated and thought for sure there was an afterlife, I'd be a lot more willing to throw my life away.
Today, no.
because i wouldnt fight for the safety of my family i would fight so shareholders in arms companies get richer
and my country (hungary) is fucking us over and over so i would fight against it if i must fight and not for it
Can anyone name some of the most nationalist and totalitarian societies trough history?
True nationalism, not some gibberish bullshit propaganda.
>>331804
I suppose you only will for it if you truly believe it would be worth it. An example would be in a rebellion or revolution.
>>331806
You may be right, from a certain point of view.As westerns we cannot understand their culture, and we mistake culture with lack of education.
It's hard to explain but in a nutshell, if Sparta wasn't there, life wasn't worth it anymore. Of course that in our modern world that means nothing, sure, we can just change places, because we don't have a definitive purpose
>>331820
Sparta
>>331816
>my country (hungary) is fucking us over and over so i would fight against it if i must fight and not for it
But you got one part of that wrong, you would not fight against your own country, you would fight against the oppressors of your country. I support you m8. I cannot think of one country that doesn't fuck it's people over
>>331832
Is that the only one? Weren't the ancient muslims (the wise,constructive ones) who predicated their faith trough the world too?
>>331747
Brilliantly stated. Now, I have a question. If both "systems" are flawed, like we can see, then , what's the alternative? An Hybrid?
Since the early 2000s when the big eruopean "recession" hit our life got worse and worse while we had fucking comedies in the parliement about politicans tearing the country apart while destroying our infrastructure
I went into germany and saw that an uneducated no german speaking fucking dumb fag gets more pay than i will with my economic college degree and saw only mercedes/audi/bmw and came back here i hate hungary
We have so much potential and we used it well but some shit shelfish politicans got i to power who only cared about making their pockets bigger and everything started going down with the speed of light
I want communism back :(
>>331890
If it makes you feel better, corruption is a human condition, my country is fucked too, outsiders take our jobs for half the pay.
>>331904
Honestly i want to leave this shithole because there are no future here but the original destination, germany will be a shithole in a few years and we will be stuck here getting shit for our work while in the west cleaners get more than us college graduates and this kills every ation that i have.. In usa ppl of my age live alone and own cars and here its completly normal for 25 year olds to live with their parents
This year is the worst in my life tbqh because the future is just a big empty black hole but meh this is life
>>331853
>If both "systems" are flawed
Who says the older system is flawed? Personally, I find great comfort in viewing my "self" in the same way the Romans did. It just makes more sense to me. Though I'm also what one would describe as a traditionalist, so I'm probably biased.
I will admit that the particular view of "self" isn't for everyone. Evola describes this particular mindset as one that is commonly found in the warrior class of ancient peoples. And in The Republic, Plato describes how the different stratas of his society (the normal citizens vs. the warriors/guardians or rulers) would be educated differently and hold different values, with the warriors/guardians holding values similar to the ones I stated where their conception of "self" is entirely based on their community, whereas normal citizens wouldn't have that idea drilled as hard into their heads.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that if a hybrid system were ever to exist I think it would work best like this: the normal citizens would be allowed to express their individuality and autonomy to a greater extent. The soldier/ruling class, however, would be taught that their conception of "self" is entirely based on their community, and that they are only as good as the civilization they protect. With this in mind, the rulers and soldiers would (hopefully) act in a more selfless sense, devoting themselves entirely to overseeing the well-being of the community while the normal people go about their daily lives and don't have to worry about the burden of guarding the community.
So basically, rulers/soldiers are indoctrinated to be completely selfless and view their "selves" as extensions of their community, while the normal citizens get to live out their lives, express their individuality, and let the other strata worry about the burdens of the community.
>>331972
I wouldn't recommend you to emigrate to another country, things just aren't the same. Try to find a way there, if it turns out to be impossible, gtfo of there.
>>331999
>who says older system is flawed?
If you are playing a role for your society constantly, you lose autonomy, and if it's the other way around, you lose pseudo necessary dependency and belonging.Making both systems alienating after certain point.
Also, wouldn't different indoctrinations and discrimination of groups (warriors=selfless, citizens= "selfish")generate conflicts and ultimately the demise of the state?
>>331617
Not to mention most spartans weren't even warriors, but simply serfs working to feed the warrior caste. I doubt those people would give two shits for sparta or the spartan doctrine.
>>331617
>unless you have a fetish for strict order and combat
And what if I do? Are you going to kinkshame me shitlord :^)
>>331972
>In usa ppl of my age live alone and own cars
>implying
m8 the USA isn't like that at all. Most of my friends have to share a 2-bedroom apartment between 3 people to pay the rent each month, and they all work in shit jobs that don't pay too well because college degrees are useless now. Combine that with the retarded health insurance laws* in my state and most people are FORCED to work TWO shitty PART TIME jobs just to make enough money each month. Nobody I know owns a car. The ones who drive cars usually drive their parents cars. And most of them, many of whom are nearing 25, still live with their parents.
The USA is just as shit. Don't try to make it a fantasyland.
*Basically the law states that if you work 40+ hours at a company they HAVE to cover your health insurance. The law requires it. The idea behind this law was that companies would finally treat their workers fairly or some bullshit. What actually ended up happening is companies found out it would be cheaper to hire more people and have everyone only work 25 hours a week, meaning they didn't have to pay anyone's health insurance and nobody was able to work 40 hours, no matter how good of a worker they are. Hence, people now need two jobs to get 40 hours of work in every week.
>>332019
>If you are playing a role for your society constantly, you lose autonomy, and if it's the other way around, you lose pseudo necessary dependency and belonging.Making both systems alienating after certain point.
I can definitely see this being an issue. Like I said, the particular mindset isn't for everyone. In addition to proper teaching starting from a very young age the soldiers/guardians would have to be people of a certain personality-type in order for this to really work. Not everyone is cut out to live a life largely devoid of a "self," and not everyone should have to.
>Also, wouldn't different indoctrinations and discrimination of groups (warriors=selfless, citizens= "selfish")generate conflicts and ultimately the demise of the state?
I could also see this being a huge problem, especially if something like this were tried today. In defense of my ideas I have two points. The first is that I think some of this conflict would be minimized by the fact that the ruling class is selfless in regards to the community, which includes the citizens. They would strive to do what is best not just for them and their strata, but also the citizens below them and the community as a whole. My second is that the groups wouldn't be hereditary. The society would be a meritocracy, and it would be entirely possible for say, a poor farmer's son, or even daughter, to rise to the position of ruler IF and only IF they possessed the natural aptitude for it. On the flip side, it would also be possible for the son of a ruler to be excluded from the selection process if they didn't posses the natural aptitude. I believe that the opportunity for social mobility and the idea that a penniless orphan could one day become a ruler would also help alleviate some of the class friction.
>>332060
I based my views on that this summer i downloaded kik and talked with a lots of americans who lived like i described it
Hungary is shit tier, we have kind okayish healthcare it just the town where our village is issued to. Go to hospital has so bad medic staff that its called the slaughterhouse
And what i saw in germany showed me that life can be so much better than what we have
Fuck the rich, take away their money and if everyones is equally poor then there is no need for greed
When will communism save the world
Why should they when they can just go to Europe and get everything in life paid for by the working Euros?
>>332118
Also I would like to make the distinction that the two classes aren't inherently selfish and selfless. Every citizen would start out receiving the same education, and those who posses that natural aptitude I was talking about would advance to higher and more in-depth classes while the normal citizens would continue with their normal classes, which would largely be simplified versions of what the rulers learn. So it isn't so much that the rulers would be selfless and the citizens selfish, it's more that the rulers would be completely selfless, while the citizens would only be sorta selfless.
>>331561
Nation is a group of people sharing the same blood.
State/country is a piece of land with arbitrary borders marked on a map.
They don't share the same meaning.
>>332019
>Also, wouldn't different indoctrinations and discrimination of groups (warriors=selfless, citizens= "selfish")generate conflicts and ultimately the demise of the state?
That's exactly what happened to Sparta. Because they had such a massive Helot (slave-worker) population the military spent the majority of it's time putting down revolts or patrolling to stop revolts. If it strayed too far from the city for too long, guess what happened? A revolt.
However I assume it would work better if the worker caste wasn't, y'know, slaves and all that.
>>332136
>same blood
That's a family, not a nation.
>>332147
>this retart
>>332124
>communisim
>saving anything.
People in shitty countries are still rabidly nationalistic.
Regards,Argentinian tired of blind fucking retards.
>>331561
No they don't. Not at all. A nation is a group of people defined by a common culture and language. State and country are polities.
>>332124
>When will communism save the world
Holy shit m8.
Just so you know, Socialist/Marxist policies are the ones which made that law I was talking about requiring companies to pay for worker's health insurance which hilariously backfired. I dunno what it's done for your country, but communism hasn't done shit for mine, and i doubt it will be saving the world any time soon.
>>332129
It's all nicely explained and all, but didn't Plato try to apply that ideal state and failed [spoiler]twice![/spoiler] ?
>>332164
There were heroes though, San Martín, Moreno, Belgrano, Sarmiento,etc. I respect that part of our history.Eeverything else, is just a delusion.
>>332231
From what I've read he never directly tried to apply it, but some of the nobles he tutored did. They were overthrown quickly by political opponents, not necessarily because their ideas sucked.
Also as much as I do love Plato's ideal state I'll be the first to admit it's probably a utopia, something that will never actually be possible without a radical and sudden shift in culture and behavior among a community, especially in this day and age.
With that being said, I still think many aspects of the ideal state should be striven for and could work wonders if implemented, but I'm not gonna hold my breath and wait for a philosopher king to magically appear and make everything better.
>>332277
Triple dubs dont lie
>>332277
Communism is horrible. Socialism is horrible. It's trash.
>>332154
But he's right, you dumb stormfag
>>332284
Better than capitalism where the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer
>>332263
>I still think many aspects of the ideal state should be striven for and could work wonders if implemented
Don't overestimate human ignorance and corruption
>I'm not gonna hold my breath and wait for a philosopher king to magically appear and make everything better.
This wouldn't work even if it happened. "Only the people will save the people", and if the people need a supreme leader to achieve that, they are not making it in the first place.
Funny thing is, this dillema has existed since the dawn of man, and it will continue, I don't know why...
>>331747
Except that thanks to individualism science and technology improved a lot, which resulted in an increase in quality of life.
>>332307
>this dillema has existed since the dawn of man, and it will continue, I don't know why...
In short, because we as humans are flawed. Which is why I view the goal of religion and philosophy as trying to remove those flaws and create a better man, a Übermensch, for lack of better words.
I used to say something along these lines to my friends: "the only way humans will make a perfect world is if we are no longer human." And it's true. The very things that make us human are our biggest obstacles towards an ideal society.
>>332317
>Except that thanks to individualism science and technology improved a lot, which resulted in an increase in quality of life.
>implying science and technology never improved during pre-modern times of anti-individualism
>implying individualism directly ties in with scientific advancement in a positive way
Please present your proof to back this conjecture, because it doesn't seem entirely true to me.
>>332292
This is either bait or you're really that clueless, both are equally sad to be honest.
>>332129
Sounds like starship troopers (the book, not the movie)
>>332317
>Except that thanks to individualism science and technology improved a lot, which resulted in an increase in quality of life.
Did science eliminate world's hunger?
Did science provide us with a sustainable energy source?
Science saves and prolongs life, but does it really improve quality?
IS the world a better place? or are we facing environmental contamination and extinction of unique species?
Did science provide with renewable resources without drying out the earth?
I think not.
Science exist,and I'm in favor of it but we didn't advance in it very much, we just fucked everything up even more.
And I'm not even a sjw vegan Tesla driver
>>332381
Are you kidding me? Can't you see all the technological advancements that happened in the last 20 years alone?
>>332363
>the only way humans will make a perfect world is if we are no longer human
True, from a certain point of view. Define human first, then define it's flaws, then define the cause of those flaws. If we arrive to the same conclusion, then "ignorance" is the answer. Then , if ignorance is the answer, we have another unsolved question: Can ignorance be eliminated? My response is obviously that it can't, but we can make our climb to enlightenment, one step at a time.
>>332421
>then define the cause of those flaws
There's no way to do that until the brain is finally fully figured out.
>>332381
>did science eliminate world's hunger
No but it has done a lot for world hunger already with a promising future. Agricultural advancements, sane GMO usage among other things.
>did science providde us with a sustainable energy source
Nuclear is great, thorium in the future maybe?
>does it improve quality
It does indeed.
>is the world a better place
The best it has ever been in recorded history. 99% of the species on earth are alreadey extinct, it's natural and it happens all the time.
>renewable source without drying out the earth
No one knows what the future holds.
It seems that you are not very aware of the advancements made in.. the past 15 years even, let alone the past 20 or even 30 years. They're huge.
>>332441
I mean just look at the internet.
50 years ago this shit would have been mindblowing.
People swallowed propaganda a lot easier before mass media since they really had next to no alternatives.
>>332411
I think we are not discussing the same thing.
You see, I consider a technological advancement not a comprehension of physical reality alone , but an appliance of that comprehension with the comprehension of human need and "reality". If you know how to build a car that can go faster than a leopard, but it destroys the stratosphere, if you can build a light bulb,but you run out of electricity, if you can genetically modify food, but it kills people, if you can build planes, but you run out of oil, if you can create robots, but only to maximize mass production, if you can digitalize information, but you limit it's flow, then , it's not a technological advancement.
>>332457
Then it's a moral matter which is completely subjective
>>332452
It was not even 15 years ago that stable broadband with better speeds than 56k became affordable.
Today? You can easily get a 1gbps connection if you want for a very reasonable price.
>>332421
I pretty much have the same conclusion as you senpai.
However in regards to the question of whether ignorance can be eliminated while I agree that it can't, I would like to add that it is a lot easier to minimize the ignorance of a single, differentiated person than it is to minimize it for a whole population. Which is why I support Plato's caste system and the idea that the populous, which is mostly ignorant, needs a small group of specialized individuals who are higher on the "steps to enlightenment" than the general populous, at least right now.
Like you said, we may not be able to get there right now, but we can go one step at a time, with the best of our philosophers leading the way. And if it turns out we overstep and we're not ready to climb that next step then we'll fall, and it will be tragic. But we'll never know if we're ready to climb that next step until we try.
>>332441
>improving quality
Tell me about all those old people who live their 89's like a vegetable.
is the world a better place
>The best it has ever been in recorded history. 99% of the species on earth are alreadey extinct, it's natural and it happens all the time.
Maquiavelic my friend.
>Nuclear energy
Not secure, we may die tomorrow because of it, who knows, ask Fukushima
>>332464
Indeed, nice closure you made there.
>>332468
I'm afraid that no one will even try, I mean, do you imagine an Iconic figure emerging from today's mediocrity and sacrificing his own interest by creating such a concept?
>>332486
So because old people become sick with age, life quality has not improved?
Uh, okay then.
>maquiavelic
No.
>Nuclear energy
It's by far the safest and best source of energy mankind has today.
You bring up Fukushima like that was the fault of nuclear energy and not because it wasn't built properly, even though it's in an area prone to earthquakes and tsunamis.
The highest wall was 5m, the tsunami was something like 15m.
Anytime someone ever brings up Fukushima/Chernobyl as an example as to why nuclear energy is bad that says everything about the knowledge they lack on the matter.
>>331561
One nation can be split between 10 states being the minority in some and the majority in others.
>>332513
>maquiavelic
Yes. "The end justifies the means" " the evolution of the species justifies the extinction of these, so it's perfectly fine, who cares"
>So because old people become sick with age, life quality has not improved?
I'm not an extremist, I recognize that it has improved significantly, but not enough to call it a full "advancement", considering our time.
Also, old men in history (assuming we are talking of the best periods) died perfectly functional and healthy, dying of natural causes, not like vegetables.
>It's by far the safest and best source of energy mankind has today.
That's what I mean, that's the best one, why isn't there a less risky, better one? Is science not that capable?
>>332542
Thanks for the correction, appreciate it.
>>332498
I would like to imagine it's possible, but highly unlikely.
If such a thing were to occur it would require a dramatic shakeup in society first. I'm talking complete economic collapse, or something like that.
And even then, the odds would still be slim.
Anyway I've gotta get going. But it was great talking with you anon. Hope you have a good day.
>>332569
Godspeed anon
>>332546
The extinctions happens naturally, all the time. It's not something that happens because of humans.
Compare today's life to say.. 200 years ago, it's like day and night. 200 years go you'd die from anything. How many people die today due to a wound getting infected, due to giving birth or due to food poisoning compared to then?
Old men in history? Humans getting old and living good is something that rarely happened in the past.
>Why isn't there a better one
Because we're not very far into the scientific era if you will, we're only just getting started and the leaps we've made are already insane.
>>332586
I have many points to state on my favor, but this isn't getting anywhere. Anyways , I appreciate your comeback, will think about it for sure.
I will try to think better of science, and I also hope you try to question it's course too.
>>332613
I'm not saying we shouldn't question science, that is what science is about.
But to claim that it hasn't changed human life for the better in many many ways is ridiculous, obviously nothing is perfect and it has brought a lot of negativity as well.
>>332613
Dude the problem is that according to your logic every single scientifical discovery in history is irrelevant due to the fact that we can still get hurt and die very easily.
Death is oveerated
>>332652
I have already said that I'm not an extremist. I don't deny technological advancement, I just question it's effectiveness. Maybe I'm seeing trough different eyes, I'm more in a Philosophical point of view while I think you are at a practical use perspective
>>332687
Yeah, that's why I said it's a matter of morals earlier.
>>332684
Underrated post
Because we are one global civilization now and the only foes the global country still goes to war with are savages trying to tear the global civilization into parts.
>>332701
b-b-b-b-b-back to pol!
patriots are retards
>>332365
Why
>>332879
says the erratic poster.
Care to explain why?
>>332879
Question is: How and why did society change to make you think like that?
I fucking agree.
I can't stand this world where nobodu would die for Britain. In fact everyday I go out and spend about 30 minutes watching people and deciding if they would die for this country (pic related). As you can see the results are shameful
>>332928
>In fact everyday I go out and spend about 30 minutes watching people and deciding if they would die for this country
kek
>>331544
Even thousands of years ago people were aware that nationalism is just an excuse for the rich to manipulate the masses so they could get even more rich.
> The wild beasts of Italy have their caves to retire to, but the brave men who spill their blood in her cause have nothing left but air and light. Without houses, without settled habitations, they wander from place to place with their wives and children; and their generals do but mock them when, at the head of their armies, they exhort their men to fight for their sepulchers and the gods of their hearths, for among such numbers perhaps there is not one Roman who has an altar that has belonged to his ancestors or a sepulcher in which their ashes rest. The private soldiers fight and die to advance the wealth and luxury of the great, and they are called masters of the world without having a sod to call their own. Tiberius Gracchus
>>332928
>>333066
Yet without the rich manipulating the public you and I wouldn't even be using the internet right now.
>>332928
>>332928
Autistic 2bh
>>331544
Better question is why doesn't anyone get executed for treason in this country anymore?
>>331544
because they haven't been indoctrinated by imperialist ideology.
>>331999
That's a fine sentiment but humans do not work that way. You do NOT want your military having distinctly different values than the bulk of the citizenry or the rulers. Ultimately they are the source of authority and power and you will quickly find that they are the rulers AND the military and you have a boot on your neck.
This is the genesis of the well-meaning "Diversity is strength" and "We're all the same on the inside" modern liberal outlook. The idea there is that only by eradicating differences can we hope to get along. I don't think they're going about it in the right way, but creating stark differences within your own polity is suicide.
>>332046
The Spartans were all warriors. They were a very small elite. The Helots were neighbors they had enslaved, and were not Spartans. There were also an in-between sort of people, the "Periokoi" or "dwellers round-about" who were a necessary intermediary between the Spartans and certain necessities like trade and contact with other peoples. They at times fought with the Spartans on military campaigns and were not serfs, nor yet Equals.
>>331544
You appear to be only looking at the progressively lazier western side of the map.
Go between Pakistan and India and you'll find the men willing to die for their nations.
>>332441
The wondrous benefits of mechanized agriculture have largely been mitigated by the explosion of population
rather than feeding the people we had more effectively, we produced many many more people who starve
>>334971
The good countries didn't explode in population, just the shit ones.
>>332586
Read up on the Passenger pigeon sometime. It went from being perhaps the most numerous bird on Earth to being totally extinct within a single human generation, due mostly to habitat destruction brought about by our development following the Industrial Revolution.
Humans are not responsible for all the extinctions, but we are certainly responsible for many and some pretty spectacular ones at that. We are making our mark, for better or worse.
>>334980
Yes, because in those countries who developed these technologies and advancements organically as a result of steady progress, it turns out that an interesting facet of a well-fed and generally prosperous people with lots of material wealth is that they're less inclined to breed like rabbits.
Unfortunately technology proliferates much more quickly than societies evolve, so people who still needed decades or centuries to get to that same point got vastly increased food production but not the rest of the package. So they reproduced propitiously and were unable to provide adequately. Famine, wars and unrest ensue.
So that's an example of how technology, even ones that are seemingly beneficial to some, can create a great many other problems that might leave the balance of humanity worse off than before.
>>335012
Clearly the answer is to get unicef to give these poor people even more free food.
>>334967
>progressively lazier western
WW2 was the last time this romanticized way of just throwing your life for the state was prevalent. Even then this was often done by desperate or fanatical peoples. The idea of giving your life for the state is not dead in the West. Its just under a more pragmatic filter. There are more than enough times when people are willing to get themselves killed just to follow orders or save other people.
>>331780
AH, but (and I'm assuming you're the American from earlier in the thread) in our country people legitimately believe outright falsities. The most obscene is one that was believed to be an understood truth by a colleague when she asked me "Who do you think protects our country?" which is a question to which I am compelled to answer as I assume (from their conscription) the Swiss and as I assume (from a discreet remark in Plato's Republic) the ancient Ancient Greeks would: "A citizens' militia."
In the War of the 1810's (or 1812 as you may have been taught), a citizens' militia intervened in the Creek Civil War and repelled the British from the Louisiana territory. The only function of a standing army in our country today is to prevent large-scale conflicts (such as the world wars) and to spread American ideology--ideologies significantly warped from those which I was taught to respect.
>>332215
>Compulsory private health care
Yeah, that's pretty dimmadamn marxist right therrrr.
Mostly because from Rothbard to Marx it was realized it was pointless and meant nothing it never did. Why should an individual fight and die for some collectivist entity like the state that restricts your liberty/why should a worker kill his fellow workers or die for his exploiters etc etc.
>>334971
You know disregarding famine and such on top of government factors and wars and sanctions.
>>335369
The military of a modern democratic nation is a reflection of that people's will and values, as transmitted by a representative democracy. Just because the world is a mite more complicated than muh freedums or terrissms doesn't mean that those ideologies are warped. They are the expression of the American people's liberty.
I think it's in part because being conquered by an enemy meant being ruled by them whether you like it or not. You couldn't easily just go somewhere else like you can now.
in western country maybe, the rest of the world is still nationalistic
>>331642
>all those history classes that told you how great George Washington was ( Or your country equivalent)
My history classes were a bit more nuanced than that. We were taught both the fantastical stories of his life and that they were most likely nothing more than propaganda and that he had not been at all as benevolent or down to earth as the folktales made seem.
>All those pledges of allegiances you made in school
I never swore any pledges of allegiance in school. I honestly didn't even know that this was a thing anymore.
>the local values your parents should have thought you
Don't be a dick? That's about it, really.
>>335483
>why should a worker kill his fellow workers or die for his exploiters
That's what European Socialists said until August 1st 1914. Then they pulled a remarkable 180° turn.
>>331544
>Why don't people die for their nations anymore?
Why would they?
Why would anyone sacrifice or put their life on the line for a group of politicians that don't give a shit about me or the country if that doesn't fill their own pockets?
Why would I fight in the name of some arbitrary borders and a set of traditions or culture against others who would either fight for the same distorted ideals(or worse) or protect something I might not want to take part in or don't feel I'm a part of it?
Nation is an obsolete notion, while it might not have been abandoned in practice it almost doesn't exist anymore as far as the majority of human beings are concerned.
Even in places were social cohesion is much more developed at a personal level such as Japan almost nobody but nostalgic old people or exhalted nationalists want to fight in the name of a nation anymore.
You might blame this on the much "higher" amount of information and ease of access to it, which made a lot of people doubt about their traditional values and their core beliefs when confronted with other realities.
Even most of those who profess the will to fight in the name of a nation or ethnic group use it as a convenient curtain to cover their economic interests, America is undoubtedly the champion in this sector.
There are much higher callings than to fight for a nation, and luckily a lot of people have realized it in the last few decades, granted that this has ironically spawned extreme nationalistic movements as a reaction, but concept such as the myth of the Mother Land have either been forgotten or heavily reinterpreted.
Also, consider the following: does the destruction of a country in political or physical term equal to the destruction of a set of values or culture? Is anyone bound to the land and culture they're born in or have any moral obligation to it and he people living in it just because of their birth?
>>331544
Because the antagonists of individuals are no longer those outside their "nation" but those outside their ideology, bigger or smaller group identities and/or general world view, wether they are inside or outside their nation or state.
With free societies comes free thinking and with free thinking comes that sharing blood does not mean sharing a way of life. One brother can be a capitalist christian while the other is a transsexual atheist communist. It makes sense for people with such a differing way of life to seperate from eachother and instead find people who share their conceptions of what is (a) good (life).
Then there is the fact that, while nation does still have some bearing on individual identity, the western European nations are edging towards more collective national identities some with and some without names. A roughly pan-Germanic (as in Germany the country) identity exists with some Dutch, Danish, Austrian and Swiss people identifying essentially as sattelite nations and cultures of Germany. The same is true for Scandinavians, as well as a Northwestern European identity that includes both those pan-Germanic and Scandinavian identities and include people from other nations as well, especially those who are on the German side of the European financial split that mostly runs a north/south course.
Then there are a ton of other identities like footbal clubs, religious affiliations, cities, subnational regions, transnational regions, European (Union) identities and so on.
That is why the nation and the nation-state has been in decline. With literally hundreds of identities a person might choose from and mix and match... why choose a vague historical nation filled with people you might utterly despise run by a system that hasn't been working since the late '60s or early '70s?
>>336723
ps: The nation as a virtuous concept has taken significant damage from the behaviour of that nation that most extremely propagated it's own existence over others, Nazi Germany. From then on, nationalism has been a feared and rejected stance towards life.
because we are in an age where people understand that being human is the objectively common thing to all citizens in all countries, all humans fundamentally work in the same way and there is no reason to let social constructs like tradition and borders separate us from progressing humanity forward and building a society that's not divided by bullshit and actually strives to be harmonious and wealthy as a whole, thus fighting for your so called "country" and especially dying for it seems illogical and people decide to immigrate to places where you don't need to worry about dying for other people's stupidity and focus on contributing to the world your individual talents and personality whilst trying to enjoy this given existence. VENUS PROJECT WHEN
>>331592
Well back then warfare was more brutal and there was more to lose on the Civilian side. Your town could get sacked and you'd lose everything you own. Your wife could be kidnapped and made a concubine. Your farm could be pillaged for its crops.
>>336792
>all humans fundamentally work in the same way
18th century wants its memes back
>>336811
lol
nice joke my friend Xd
>>331544
>Why don't people die for their nations anymore?
Because it's literally not worth it. By dying for your nation, or country, you lose everything, and your nation or country might gain something in the short term, just to be destroyed again at some later date when you are dead and can't help to defend it.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, is a pathetic lie.
>>336811
War has evolved, before guns, as long as you were good with a shield and sword all that mattered was being perceptive of the battlefield, nowadays you could get shoot and killed in an instant through no fault of your own
>>336913
>biodeterminism
>>331544
the real question is why aren't YOU putting your life on the line for your country if its so important to you?
>>336913
>>331737
m8 the American government is far more decentralized than most nations, power is so split up that it makes it pretty hard to be direct.
History has winners and losers. The victorious civilizations will impose their way of life over swathes of land. By deciding that your polity is not worth fighting for, both spiritually and physically, is like signing your death warrant and is by default a diseased civilization, i.e. one that has no drive to remain sovereign and influential, which most likely will be replaced by societies and cultures more willing to fight for themselves. However, the survival of a state is a process that cannot be determined by single wars and battles, thus it's impossible to calculate what is in vain and what is necessity. This uncertainty can be abused by the ruling class to justify unnecessary and unbeneficial (to the people) military aims, like America's communist containment, which at this point (yes, it's still ongoing) has turned into world conquest and "preemptive" strikes towards sandniggers rather than mere survival.
Luckily, until conscription becomes relevant, the military prowess and attitude of a state doesn't rely on NEETs posting on an anime imageboard so all which I just said is more or less irrelevant.
>>331685
I graduated from high school last year and we still did the pledge every day.
>>331678
>>331723
What is this disgusting bullshit that you spew from your mouth ? In modern terms it's
>I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
No one goes into a yard it's in the class room. Jfc you're all types of wrong
