>Nationalism is responsible for the creation and maintenance of literally every country on the planet with the exception of a few eternal empires
>Nationalism is agreed to be the deciding factor in the final fall of Feudalism and the introduction of Europe to the initial stages of the industrial revolution
>Nationalism has proven itself without failure to be the only thing besides religion that can unite, rally, and inspire a group of people to cooperate with each other for the common good - and therefor the only thing capable of doing so in a secular system
>Despite all of this Nationalism is seen as "backwards" and "primitive" and needs to be eradicated in the name of "progress"
When will the meme of hating Nationalism for no reason finally die, /his/?
>>Nationalism has proven itself without failure to be the only thing besides religion that can unite, rally, and inspire a group of people to cooperate with each other for the common good - and therefor the only thing capable of doing so in a secular system
No, it hasn't.
>>831101
Even the Soviet Union had a resurgence of nationalism during WW2 m8
No Russian is going to throw himself into the meat-grinder for a book about vague economic ideals
>>831090
>the only thing besides religion that can unite, rally, and inspire a group of people to cooperate with each other
Common needs and obstacles work fine too.
>>831110
Which are extremely situational and transient.
>>831108
No Russian is gonna throw himself into the meat-grinder for Russia either. Their lives and those of their loved ones were suffering an existential crisis thanks to the Nazi invasion. Their homes and cities had been destroyed by the Germans.
If they'd been sent to fight some war hundreds of miles away that had little to no effect or positive benefit for them, I doubt they'd have been more enthusiastic about 'doing it for Russia' then they would have been about 'doing it for Communism'.
>>831115
As is nationalism.
>>831090
With progressivism it's all about the process of homogenization to the lowest common denominator. Feudalism emphasized social distinction and many unique ways of life living under one kingdom. Unique ways of life mean power struggles and fracturing within the system- by eliminating this diversity you can make things more "peaceful" and easier. Nationalism was about eliminating this diversity and homogenizing people under the guise of the "citizen" an identity constructed by state power. Internationalism seeks the same process of neutralization only only on a scale where all of humanity is homogenized at the absolute lowest common denominator of "humanity". The trajectory towards flattening out of all distinction and sapping out any chance for human virtue or dignity by neutralizing what makes us differentiated and conflict with one another is what progressivism has always been about. Nationalism's destruction was already present in its initial conception and motivation.
>>831127
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't studied the Eastern Front that much if you really think Russian nationalism had nothing to do with the Soviet's incredible morale-advantage during the war, especially in the beginning parts
>>831130
>thinking nationalism is transient
Still going strong in America and France 300 years after the fact.
>>831136
I seen no problem here.
>>831159
We last man now
>>831115
Why would people want to be united, otherwise?
>>831164
That's the wrong guy.
>>831187
>Thinking humans are unfeeling calculators that only ever think about their own objective benefit
Lolberg plz go
>>831090
It seems a tad silly to act as though an 18th Century idea was responsible for the creation and perseverance of all those countries that preceded it by 1000s of years makes any sense.
Likewise It seems a tad disingenuous to ignore the violence and destruction caused by it.
>>831196
Never said that.
People need companionship and warmth sometimes. These still are situational and transient, if you go deep enough. Why bind people together if they'd rather be apart? Who does that help?
>>831222
I'm just going to point to the clusterfuck that was the >Holy >Roman >Empire along with the unified Germany after the introduction of nationalism and leave it at that
>>831090
It's a spook anon
>Nationalism has proven itself without failure to be the only thing besides religion that can unite, rally, and inspire a group of people to cooperate with each other for the common good - and therefor the only thing capable of doing so in a secular system
But that's complete bullshit anon; all that time and sweat each individual spent serving the idea of a nation could have been spent on themselves. Respond with as many fedoras as you like, but religion and nationalism alike are intellectual training wheels. They might seem nice and stable on your tricycle, but you don't want to put them on a working motorbike. When you're cavemen trying to rise above shitting outside, having a phantom target to unify people under is grand, but over broad periods of time dogmas like household religions and "the almighty infallible uncle sam" have always gone down in power as intellect goes up. Even Saudi kings heading religious states in modern day still ship off their little princelings off to secular countries so they can go get an actual education whenever they're bored of doing doughnuts in their Audi.
>>831244
Go away Stirner nobody except for NEETs take you seriously
>>831237
>I'm just going to point to the clusterfuck that was the >Holy >Roman >Empire along with the unified Germany after the introduction of nationalism and leave it at that
So historical truth doesnt matter to you then if it doesnt support your ideology?
>>831251
Just mad cause dubs
>>831253
Are you denying the heavy influence German nationalism had on the unification of a bunch of petty kingdoms that resisted centralized unification for almost a thousand years?
>>831262
No, what Im doing is saying that using the German experience as the model is cherrypicking and wholly ignores the experience in other countries both in Europe and outside of it. Indeed the German experience is markedly different from all the other unification we saw happening at that time and previously.
Not only that but it pulls the rug out from under itself as countries (which require nationalism to form by your definition) were already in existeince in the form of Prussia.
Were I to use your reasoning for instance I could say that Islam was spread only peacefully by using the example of Indonesia.
Were anyone to question me I would like you say
Are you denying that Indonesia the most populous mulism country was not converted peacefully/not by conquest.
>>831282
>Conflating nations with countries
Please stop
Also what the fuck does Islam have to do with this
>>831286
>Conflating nations with countries
Only going by the use of the word in the OPs posts.
>Also what the fuck does Islam have to do with this
Its an example of the faulty reasoning in >>831262. I took the exact same logic and applied it to another historical question.
The OP's conclusion is one that can only be reached by cherry picking just like the conclusion in that example I posted
>>831309
No but seriously are you denying nationalism's role in the unification of Germany?
>>831141
>I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't studied the Eastern Front that much if you really think Russian nationalism had nothing to do with the Soviet's incredible morale-advantage during the war, especially in the beginning parts
I think they're saying that the motivation of the Soviet soldiers was only "nationalist" insofar as they knew they were fighting to protect their friends and family back home. But when nationalism is just a set of ideals and you're fighting a war with no immediate effect back home (e.g. Vietnam) it's not going to be a strong motivation.
>>831316
>No but seriously are you dennying the peaceful conversion of Indonesia?
Of course I dont deny the role of nationalism in the unification of germany for third time what I deny is the conclusions you are attempting to draw from this.
>>831316
Plate armor once served an important role in warfare, that doesn't mean it's a useful tool in modern day society
>>831340
>>831345
I very, very seriously doubt all of nations of the modern world would last very long if you systematically eradicated all traces of nationalism.
Take for example America, whats to stop it from balkanizing and fracturing into a hundred different small countries the moment everyone stops considering the label of "American" as being integral to their own identity and the identity of their father-nation? Nothing, except perhaps the overwhelming military-industrial complex that would have it in its best interest to keep America unified under the Union.
The same can be applied to France and Germany and England and virtually every other nation in the world. If nationalism is taken away, whats to stop everything from simply devolving into feuding city-states? Before the only thing preventing this from happening was the presence of absolute monarchs but we don't have that anymore now do we
>>831361
>Take for example America, whats to stop it from balkanizing and fracturing into a hundred different small countries the moment everyone stops considering the label of "American" as being integral to their own identity and the identity of their father-nation?
What's to start it? Nations exist for reasons other than nationalism. Under what circumstances could nationalism come to be? Why, in a nation of course! Now, what incentives could cause people to form a nation? Clearly not nationalism, as that's a simply biproduct of an already existing nation, not something which can create one. Ergo, people have deeper incentives beyond "I must serve my banner!" when they unify under a flag.
>>831387
If you think a good deal of countries wouldn't immediately secede from the union if given the chance every time a controversial president is elected then you're wrong.
>>831395
Err, states, not countries
>>831361
>I very, very seriously doubt all of nations of the modern world would last very long if you systematically eradicated all traces of nationalism.
Bringing you back to >>831286 just to be sure here you mean mean nations not countries?
>examples
By your reasoning the US and France shouldnt have even formed in the first place given the lack of nationalism in their inceptions and should have promptly collasped.
> Before the only thing preventing this from happening was the presence of absolute monarchs but we don't have that anymore now do we
Is that why the US and UK who lacked absolute monarchs collapsed and balkanised before Russia, Austria and France? oh wait that didnt happen.
>>831090
>Killing, raping and pillaging is the backbone of all modern society.
>Despite this, its hated and considered primitive by the society.
When will the meme of hating rape, murder, and stealing for no reason finally die, /his/?
>>831395
The largest reason for which people don't secede from the union is because they understand it's a dumb idea given past results. In the event an appeal to intelligence doesn't work, yes, nationalism can be a great tool, but it's a tool you ought to not have to use if you actually educate the populace so that they can aptly act in their own best interest.
>>831409
(Yes, I do mean nations, but sometimes say countries without noticing)
>y your reasoning the US and France shouldnt have even formed in the first place given the lack of nationalism in their inceptions and should have promptly collasped.
Except they didn't because US had nationalism and France had famously absolutist monarchies
>Is that why the US and UK who lacked absolute monarchs collapsed and balkanised before Russia, Austria and France? oh wait that didnt happen.
Except the US had its own special brand of inclusive nationalism from the very beginning, while the UK had, while not an absolute monarch, a constitutional monarchy that nonetheless resulted in quite a few civil wars as a result.
>>831421
>The largest reason for which people don't secede from the union is because they understand it's a dumb idea given past results.
In other words, because the military steps in and violently prevents secession. This doesn't go against anything I've said.
>Napoleon
>Dissolution of Austria-Hungary
>Three thousand consecutive Balkan chimpouts
Fuck nationalism and fuck everything that happened after French revolution for that matter.
>>831438
>Thinking Napoleon wasn't amazing
>Thinking the dissolution of Austria-Hungary wasn't one of the best thing to happen to Europe
>Thinking the Balkans haven't always been a clusterfuck
>>831431
How does this not go against what you've said? Name one instance where an appeal to nationalism is anything more than a replacement for an appeal to intellect.
>>831454
Because appeal to intellect never works and you should know that after 5,000 years of human history
>>831445
>Thinking the dissolution of Austria-Hungary wasn't one of the best thing to happen to Europe
t. Serb
>>831426
>Except they didn't because US had nationalism
Not at formation it didnt.
>France had famously absolutist monarchies
Are you legitimately saying that the Kingdom France only emerged in the 16th Century?
>Except the US had its own special brand of inclusive nationalism from the very beginning,
So in other words a unique kind of nationalism that exists to buttress your points?
>hile the UK had, while not an absolute monarch, a constitutional monarchy that nonetheless resulted in quite a few civil wars as a result.
None of those civil wars were towards balkanisation as your posts claim should be the case.
while the UK had, while not an absolute monarch, a constitutional monarchy that nonetheless resulted in quite a few civil wars as a result.
Look to save us both time is there any evidence/argument that would convince you that your view is not the historical truth ?
>>831445
>strong empire in the middle of Europe dismembered into two dozen weak microshitholes leaving their assholes gaping wide open for the Nazis, Russians and Americans
What a great idea.
>>831459
It works more and more frequently. The christian church for example used to be the law of it's land, now the pope is just a liberal mascot. Appeals to intellect are things grown into, appeals to identity are things grown out of. You can see this across the board in history.
>>831469
>Look to save us both time is there any evidence/argument that would convince you that your view is not the historical truth ?
Two groups of people with different religions, cultures, languages, etc, working together consistently for the betterment of both in a synergistic relationship that is more than just purely situational/opportunistic
>>831477
t. Ideologue convinced of his idea's own inevitability
>>831090
Pic was dead on, that was thestupidest thing I've ever read.
>hey /his/
>did u know
>everyone did everything because of nationalism
>just cuz
>>831490
>sniffle
Saying it's constantly approached does not mean it's something that I ever expect reached in completion. Historical trends don't lie though; has the power of dogma gone up with technological advancement and standard of living, or down? The closer and closer you get to modern day, you get more and more examples of nationalism letting regrettable things happen and fewer and fewer examples of it doing any good. How can you call me an ideologue when you're the one claiming we ought to place more value in a spook?
>>831507
>spook
STIRNER GO AWAY REEEEEEEEE
>>831485
>Two groups of people with different religions, cultures, languages, etc, working together consistently for the betterment of both in a synergistic relationship that is more than just purely situational/opportunistic.
Song China
The Roman Empire
Mughal India
Nubian Dynasty Egypt
Indonesian Archipelago
>>831520
Oh and Switzerland as well as the Iroquois Confederacy
Internal nationalism for a nation is a good thing, it drives the local populace to defend and preserve the tribe. Only problem is that certain cultures, often driven by certain kinds of ideology or religion, become ever aggressively expansionist.
But honestly though, people vilify Nationalism for some strange reason. I guess because it implies that some people might thing their nation is better than others, thus it's evil because of muh equality. I don't see why nations can't aid each other for mutual benefit.
Tribalism has always been the driving factor in the construction of societies and civilizations.
>>831090
Industrialism caused nationalism senpai.
not nationalism causing industrialism.
>>831520
>Song China
Very ethnically homogeneous, only significant difference was in religion
>Roman EMPIRE
AHAHAHAHAH
They were fucking IMPERIAL they decimated anyone who did not submit to their rule without mercy, fuck you talking about?
>Mughal India
Never really studied this one
>Nubian Dynasty Egypt
A couple of leaders doesn't count
>Indonesian archipelago
Had the advantage of being relatively isolated from each other thus preventing major conflicts from breaking out
>Switzerland
Arguable, but this is the best example you have
>Iroquois
Spoke the same language, had same religion, and were basically the same ethnicity as each other.
>>831533
>Very ethnically homogeneous, only significant difference was in religion
Which is a massive issue. Likewise they were about as homogeneous as pre absolutist France was.
>They were fucking IMPERIAL they decimated anyone who did not submit to their rule without mercy, fuck you talking about?
The fact that they created a system were multiple people with different religions, cultures, languages, etc, working together consistently for the betterment of both. This doesn't mean pacifism.
>Never really studied this one
A good start then, a successor state to a mongol state that effectivly united most of India and managed to maintain relative harmony between Hindus and Muslims.
>Had the advantage of being relatively isolated from each other thus preventing major conflicts from breaking out
What on earth are you talking about they were not isolated at all, it was the opposite they were a trading hub which benifited from not having land barriers.
>Arguable, but this is the best example you have
So what is the consequence of this?
>Spoke the same language, had same religion, and were basically the same ethnicity as each other.
They spoke the same language in the way that Spanish, French and Romanians speak the same language. Religion wise only if you judge it by the extremely formalized Abrahmanic view. When you say ethnicity do you mean race or something else?
Consider the following, you can travel from one side of the planet to the other in 5 minutes by transportation, how do you justify the idea of nation states and borders?
This will be a reality in the not too distant future.
>>831090
> inspire a group of people to cooperate with each other for the common good
Yeah lets just not mention the genocide and wars.
>>831640
How else are you going to contain, organize and control billions of people? Have a giant global nation state? Are people allowed to have pride in that state?
>>831650
>Yeah lets just not mention the genocide and wars.
Why is Nationalism explicitly tied with warfare and genocide? Plenty of non Nationalists have killed other people.
>>831659
>Why is Nationalism explicitly tied with warfare and genocide? Plenty of non Nationalists have killed other people.
Because it is the only ideology that comes close to hitting communism death count and in fact has Gommunism beat when it comes to genocide. Nationalism is just tribalism for white people.
>>831681
Communism has a high death count because of the failures of it's system, Nationalism has a "high" death count because of what exactly? Some regimes happened to dislike certain ethnicity? What does Nazi Germany's hatred of the Jews having to do with have pride in your own nation?
It, like all ideology, depends on context and whom controls it. Unless a specific aspect of the Nationalist ideology says that "we must kill *insert something here*", it is inherently tied to violence.
>>831697
>it is inherently tied to violence.
Meant to say
>it ISN'T inherently tied to violence.
>>831659
I don't have the answer to that, I imagine the pragmatic solution will be something like an economic law imposed on the entire world.
But you have to answer how you solve issues like person A lives 3000 km away from person B, but both are able to show up to workplace X located in the same city in approximately the same travel time. What is the justification for keeping person A out?
>>831697
>, Nationalism has a "high" death count because of what exactly? Some regimes happened to dislike certain ethnicity? What does Nazi Germany's hatred of the Jews having to do with have pride in your own nation?
It creates a more divisive system of them and us and places the loyalty that should be owed to God in the state.
> it is inherently tied to violence.
It is the greatest tool of violence even if not violent itself. There is a big reason why genocide is somthing linked with the modern nation state
>>831640
Human beings are tribal animals, who form together into political groups to acquire their shared aims.
Globalization means forcing a one-size fits all tribe unto all mankind, violently suppressing any value-set other than the dominant one, and in short acting like an Empire while denying Empire [which is of course, the worst form of Empire, because a true Empire absorbs lesser tribes into itself and becomes a greater identity, whereas this is simply the negation of identity].
Enlightened tolerant westerners promote a global society where all cultures are tolerates....as long as they're enlightened, tolerant, and western.
>>831705
>will be something like an economic law imposed on the entire world.
I see nation states as a means of controlling and regulating peoples, and in order to preserve the morale fabric of that society, Nationalism is required. Pride and a desire to continue doing what's best for your extended National family. Globalization, after we have overcome the inferior cultures and overcome inherent biological factors, still will need global Nationalism (Internationalism I suppose). When we encounter alien civilizations, we'll need to resort back to Tribalism.
We're just going to have to hope that all of man can become westernized like us.
>>831711
>It creates a more divisive system of them
You're implying Humans aren't naturally divisive in the first place, and naturally stratify into tribes. Still, violence is merely a slippery slope,
>There is a big reason why genocide is somthing linked with the modern nation state
No it isn't, genocide and violence has happened through out all of Human existence. Nationalism is just a tool used, just as religion is a tool used, as a means of violence.
>>831595
Are you going to respond to this?
you listed three memes and a truth
>>831526
Actually tribalism was famously anandoned for the sake of civilization. Case in point, the Hungarians.
Well, Nationalism is really a very simple idea. As it is understood today by the majority, or the academic underclass, it is synonymous with a bunch of things that have nothing to do with it.
>Lord One to Lord Two: "Well fuck feudalism is dead and the people will no longer do what we want them to do. How do we make them work for us and fight to protect our property?"
>Lord Two: "I know! How about we tell them that they're actually fighting for a 'nation' or some other arbitrarily created construct, tell them they're all connected somehow and make them fight for us!"
>Lord One: "Genius! They'll practically sign up to fight for us and if they don't, we'll conscript them and tell them it's their 'national duty' or whatever!"
>Lord Two: "Perfect! It'll be just like feudalism, only they'll think they're actually doing it for some abstract concept which means nothing and not actually for us!"
And thus nationalism was born.
>>832069
What is the urge to protect, preserve or improve your wider community and way of life then? Is it part of nationalism, something else?
>>832094
It's the urge to protect. It has been tied into nationalism in order to spur the masses to protect higher interests.
>>832069
do you have any evidence that this sort of thought process was what the ruling class thought of as the new normal? i'd love any citation explaining the decline of feudalism in great detail.
Depens on how people define nationalism.
The proper definition, which is "the belief that different cultures, linguistic groups and (less relevant today) races deserve their own nation state (some people even include economical or social class but i think that is a bit too far)
This as a idea is fine and is responsible for many beautiful things. Traditionally, smaller countries show the good side of this nationalism.
If you define nationalism as "viewing your race or culture as superior and perceive that your race has some inherit rights that others don't" it is obviously harmful.
Nationalism gets a lot of flack and purposeful misrepresentation because nationalism is directly against the interest of different political groups and corporations throughout the 20th and early 21th century. But the cracks are appearing faster and faster because people can see the benefits of nationalism in front of their eyes.
Many anti-nationalist find themselves supporting nationalist solutions, such as the two-state solution for Israel-Palestine and fracturing Africa into smaller states to avoid civil wars etc etc etc...
so tl;dr
Nationalism is good when it manifests in people trying to help each other.
Nationalism is bad when it is used as a means for imperial ambitions. Crimea for example.
I'm quite biased on nationalism, since i'm Finnish and in Finland nationalism can be attributed to several good things.
>>832108
Are you sure your second definition is not Tribalism?
Civic nationalism>Ethnic nationalism
As always, the Germans ruin everything
>>832120
This. Singapore is the best example of this.
>>832097
I won't quibble with the idea that the urge to protect is played upon for political gain, but I don't think you can separate it from nationalism so easily. For a lot of people nationalism includes this sense, I think you have to be very particular in defining nationalism if you are to exclude it. Like Orwellian nationalism etc
>>832125
Then what did people do before nationalism? Not have the urge to protect and defend?
>>832120
Seems to be working out fine for the Han Chinese
>>832112
Well we live in an age where using "literally" wrong is ok and liberalism has nothing to do with personal freedoms. Definitions change.
>>831090
>...The content of this post was almost physically painful for you to read.
I agree. Your post has exceeded all the limits of imbecility, and makes me lose faith in mankind.
That said, Nationalism is the worst mental plague that ravaged civilization in the last 200 years. As before that, this dementia did not exist.
>>832128
It was centred around the tribe, it then moved from the tribe to the nation, basically an extension of the tribe.
You seem to be thinking I'm saying nationalism invented the urge to protect, far from it. I'm just saying that it plays a part in it which shouldn't be ignored.
>>832135
So the extent of the urge is incredibly flexible?
>>832120
Can you argue that Nazism was not civically nationalist? Just because there were racial undesirables does not mean that all races were ordered extinct. Croats and other slavs were given roles in the nation of the Nazis.
>>832153
Hitler was a civic nationalist pretty much, Himmler wasn't. Hitler handed out Aryanism as a title to Finns and Japs which goes very much against ethnic nationalism.
>>831659
>Why is Nationalism explicitly tied with warfare and genocide? Plenty of non Nationalists have killed other people.
If you read an undergraduate introduction to international relations theory text book, you'll find out why.
The westphalian nation state world we live in is anarchy, traditionally speaking. It creates the security dilemma. In the 20th century people attempted to fix this with international supranational bodies like the League of Nations and U.N. (ultimately failing), and the only thing that has really prevented a war between great powers since 1945 is mutually assured destruction with nuclear weapons.
>>831090
>Nationalism is responsible for the creation and maintenance of literally every country on the planet with the exception of a few eternal empires
This is so wrong I don't know where to begin. You don't think countries existed before nationalism?
>>831726
>>831659
Liberal democracies are the most successful and advanced form of human government.
The existence of nation states isn't necessary, rather the world (centuries down the line) should be a giant federal, liberal democracy where each federal state has a much larger degree of sovereignty over its internal affairs than for example US states have now.
Think of it as basically what we have now, except all countries would be liberal democracies, there would only be one UN army and no national armies, no security dilemma, and different states would mediate issues by the rule of law rather than with war.
Yes I know this is incredibly utopian and isn't remotely realistic in today's world, I'm talking about hundreds of years in the future. Bear in mind the westphalian nation state world has only been around for a few hundred years, in a few hundred more it could be gone.
>>831090
>Nationalism has proven itself without failure to be the only thing besides religion that can unite, rally, and inspire a group of people to cooperate with each other for the common good - and therefor the only thing capable of doing so in a secular system
You mean like it tied America together and how it tied Belgium and the Netherlands?
Because its tribalism on a larger scale, and all the problems applied to tribalism are magnified with the scale of nationalism
Have loyalty to the species
Gas the Elves
>>833352
And this only started with nations, of course. Violence never happened before nations, certainly not between big groups because of competing interests.
