Can we all agree that nations/nationalism/patriotism has no inherent value beyond the ideals and agreements that they serve to protect and uphold?
In the end everything really boils down to three things. Money, Race and Religion
>>993477
no
>>993477
>Can we all agree
I doubt it. On anything.
>>993477
>call we all agree to be cucks
>>993507
Every nation is founded on either a set of principals codified in a Constitution or code of Laws and or some common Ethnic lineage from past to present.
>>993520
that would be "ideals"
>>993529
No it would be their so called heritage. Ideals and values are words that mean nothing.
I hate nationalism because it's largely based on romanticist fairytales and WE WUZ tier arguments
>"yes yes, we people who were just murdering each other for centuries are actually a nation"
>>993534
"Ideals" is a massively loaded word that carries all of a country's history and beliefs.
>>993509
Does cuck mean anything anymore?
>>993477
no
>>993477
> what a stupid question that is also poorly worded
gg
Can we all agree that chairs are basically useless except for sitting on?
Can we all agree that food has no inherent value beyond sustenance?
>>993538
> being this edgy and ignorant
>>993539
Implying what exactly?
>>993543
>propose a fucking retarded assertion
>get mad when people insult you
>t-that doesn't mean anything!
>>993549
Hell if I know. But it definitely doesn't mean nothing.
>>993550
I'm not OP but the insult seems to be applied to pretty much everything.
>>993534
Heritage also means nothing.
A constitution literally, BY DEFINITION is ideals.
>>993567
But a Constitution is only as good as the people. Many nations have similar Constitution s but do each of them obey their own laws?
>>993567
>Heritage also means nothing
Look it the fuck up, nigger!
her·it·age
ˈherədij/
noun
noun: heritage; plural noun: heritages
1.
property that is or may be inherited; an inheritance.
synonyms: inheritance, birthright, patrimony;
2.
archaic
a special or individual possession; an allotted portion.
Nationalism has no value beyond being a cultural protection racket.
One hundred dollars has no value beyond being one hundred dollars.
>>993582
you can look up ideal too, m8
>>993576
Many people have the same heritage and are nothing alike.
>>993586
Honestly best post in the thread. Nothing is more retarded than your typical "x has no value ore means nothing xDD" thread.
>>993477
>Whoa dude...what if like, words don't mean anything?
>>993594
Many people have different Heritage and are Nothing alike. Is this like a grade school education you've developed from the PC crowd?
Nationalism (cultural) has the value of being the best way to run a country, which is the main reason pretty much every country employs cultural assimilation or integration programs.
Nationalist psyche within the population (i.e the population sharing the same culture and values) also allows welfare states to be created.
>>993597
Well, OP here, not trying to say that patriotism, nationalism or nations are worthless, that's just you being presumptuous.
>>993609
You are the one that said ideals are meaningless, correct?
>>993477
Can we agree instead that ideals have no value beyond the good they do the nation or person employing them?
Human beings are inherently tribal animals, if you want larger social groups you need larger tribes. Imperialism is the only legitimate path to anything even resembling a 'cosmopolitan' mindset. Simply weakening cultural institutions and the national-bond only makes you fodder for some other nation that wasn't a complete moron.
>>993477
>ideals and agreements
And people. Nationalism's first aim is to protect and advance the people of the Nation. You cannot be a Nationalist without caring for your people, and you cannot truly care for your people without being a Nationalist.
Anti-Nationalism is revisionism. It was invented by idiots and globalists who never had to see the effects of a disenfranchized people. It is easy for a faggot like Twain, who never saw the horrors of Vojvodina under Hungarian rule, or the ancient strife between Albanian and Serb, to mewl about the evils of patriotism, and demand that we all just throw up our hands and accept being devoured piecemeal instead of standing together.
A society that has no Nationalist spirit will inevitably collapse into ruin and cease to exist. We will have plenty of time to observe this process in the days to come. I feel pity--but not much of it--for the victims of this culture-death disease.
>>993675
honestly a world government would probably work best but that entails nations having to give up their own sovereignty.
>>993675
Sure, we can agree on that. This is a discussion about definition, not the value of these ideals.
The point I could conceivably try to be making here is that if you don't mind what words like this actually mean, you can contradict them in the name of themselves. Say, break the constitution with patriotism as justification, for example.
>>993548
*tips fedora*
>>993691
>having all those different people with opposing interests together under one government
>working best
Literally what?
>>993691
Actually a world government would almost certainly be terrible. Various nations serve as laboratories for differing social institutions and policies, economic and military conflict drives innovation, and moreover as said previously, humanity is a tribal animal that naturally forms into groups of shared characteristics, often based in blood, occasionally in ideology.
If you want to build a larger social group among humans, practically speaking you cannot simply tell differing groups of people "Okay now play nice", you have to absorb their old tribal identities into a new tribal identity.
EG: "We're all Romans, we're all Christians, we're all-" take your pick.
Any true 'cosmopolitan' movement would have to in fact be a national movement with the goal of taking its ideology global. Anything less than that, and its not going to work.
>>993713
Well how do you suppose you fight world poverty and climate change then?
>>993691
>honestly a world government would probably work best
>a world government would probably work
>a world government
>working
The EU is literally holding together only through legal trickery right now, and you think this would work better if Africa, the United States and Russia were also a part of it?
>>993690
>Anti-Nationalism is revisionism
So is Nationalism. Just count the shitloads of Primordialist Myths peddled around by each and every Nation.
Case and point
>A society that has no Nationalist spirit will inevitably collapse into ruin and cease to exist.
Why do you think it is a prerequisite for societies to have nationalism? When societies predated nations for fucking millenia? Answer is Nationalist revisionist history aiming to make the nation a sort of "national" phenomena.
>>993724
>Poverty?
Colonialism and capitalism. The same thing we're doing now, if we're being honest.
>climate change
Nuclear power and advanced technology.
>>993719
Basically once a national is strong enough it's manifest destiny is to build an empire that subjugated other lesser nations? That's really repeating the same mistakes of facists and communist countries in the 20th century.
>>993745
>"natural" phenomena*
>>993724
>world poverty
We wait. It's half of what it was a century ago. As the world gradually industrializes and develops, poverty will become a thing of the past. Natural market pressures will make it so.
>climate change
Nuclear power has been available for decades.
>>993600
>whoa dude what if we provide creatively structured arguments, nah lets anime post
>>993745
Not at all. I neither claim that nationalism is natural, nor that it is inevitable. Just that it is objectively superior to its absence, and that being Anti-Nationalism is being Anti-Civilization.
I am correct.
>>993745
A state, society, and nation are three different things anon. States that are not nation-states preceded nation-states by millennia.
Nations, that is, peoples of similiar blood grouping together, is as old as man. Its literally just a tribe. All modern nation-states are is reifying a large-scale tribal bond unite a people into a state.
I've always found "nationalism" to be something of a bullshit general term as it's prefaced on the behaviour of nations as non equivalent.
>>993767
>nations are equivalent
How's it feel to have a double digit IQ?
Protip: women aren't designed to be territorial and cannot understand why borders and tribalism to an extend is important.
OP is a girl.
>>993725
Yeah but unlike Russia which is a poor country that makes itself look rich and the US that isn't even a cohesive nation it once has been the EU is faring relatively well.
>>993763
>Just that it is objectively superior to its absence
Not in the case of states that contain multiple nations within it. And I'm not talking of fucking Post-Colonial Africa but long established ones like China or Russia.
If your next answer would be "they are not doing well and it is better if we balkanize them." Then based on your supposed """""""""""objectivism""""""""", this isn't the """"""""""superior""""""""""" solution as millenia long cultural institutions have been established among the multiple nations that lived within it.
>>993761
That's sad. Why would you not want to help others in need? Social Darwinism is a racist ideology.
>>993795
>Social Darwinism is a racist ideology
Stop. Social Darwinism is nothing but plain Darwinism applied to humans. Nothing more.
>>993754
No, I'm saying that if you want to build a social institution among humans, you have to embrace and exploit the tribal mindset. Which includes elements of
1. Defining ourselves, usually against others.
2. Putting the interests of US, over the interests of THEM
And lastly
3. Having cultural symbols, practices, and rituals that unite the new group symbolically.
Human beings started out as patchwork tribes of very small number. The way you go beyond that is by forming a shared identity among many tribes, so that they no longer view themselves as separated. Shared leadership and shared land helps in forging this identity.
The reason the modern social justice movements hasn't turned into any kind of really successful cosmopolitan movement, is because it embraces a million identities instead of just one all-encompassing one, because it refuses to embrace itself as a standard-bearer of value, and because it refuses to acknowledge its natural enemies [eg Islam].
Basically, if you want a world government, the only way to get it is to convince everyone to view themselves not merely as "mankind" but as a global tribe that shares certain values, cultural symbols, and institutions. Otherwise its a no-go. Tolerance and unity are not good bedfellows.
>>993690
more like nationalism is blindly identifying yourself with people from a human determined area without knowing who they are because you live in the same culture and generally leads to racism, wars and hatred by dividing humanity into easily controlled boxes of flags and ideas.
what you might be thinking about is understanding that all of humanity is striving for happiness and understanding that we are all the same in a fundamental matter
once you identify yourself as a human in spirit and mind, then real civilized and cultural progress can be made and we could live the most beautiful life,no countries and nationalism needed.
>>993781
This
Whenever a war happened and a tribe was destroyed a woman's first instinct was to look good and get on the warlords horse.
>>993783
Not true they are printing money like it can't go out of style. They're going to be in huge trouble if the economy doesn't kick back up again. Add to it that EU forces some countries not to overproduce since they are so interested in protecting their own industries, which leads to terrible efficiencies.
>>993765
>Nations, that is, peoples of similiar blood grouping together, is as old as man. Its literally just a tribe.
Except this is wrong. For one thing if we're arguing the "tribal" angle then know this: shitloads of tribes in history who shared the same language & ethnicity saw each other as fucking foreign based on shitloads of factors like residence, familial bonds, no shared history, and the like.
>All modern nation-states are is reifying a large-scale tribal bond unite a people into a state.
Which is the revisionist aspect in the whole exercise of nationalism & nation-states. Because along with this reifying comes the tweaking of history to point the direction that "this was inevitable" or "this is a return to """""""natural""""""" state of things."
When in reality, their ancestors probably killed each other since the other guy lived on the other side of the river.
>>993807
>>993795
1. Because universalizing morality makes you a cuck. Help your own, helps others if its convenient for you. Don't apply "survival of the fittest" within the tribe itself, that violates reciprocity.
2. Pulling billions of people out of poverty through colonialism and capitalism IS helping people in need. Western imperialism is objectively a net good for the nations its passed though and continues to pass through.
>>993808
By why embrace such archic belif structures? Why not embrace our humanities will to adapt and change. Were not gorillas that lack intelligence. We should transcend our old ways. It's what has been holding us back.
>>993809
>all the same in a fundamental matter
You heard it here first folks. All humans are the same. Let all those Arabs into Europe! We're all human in spirit and mind amirite?
>>993823
Thats actually exactly what I'm talking about. People naturally form into tribes. The idea of the "nation" is just taking that concept one step further, and creating a very big tribe.
Its not a return to a primitive state, its a natural outgrowth of the primitive state. Instead of a small group united by blood and shared custom, you have a big group united by blood and shared custom.
>>993807
Your wrong mate and your bent theory's have been disproven along time ago.
>>993856
Are you going to explain how? Don't just say "UR RONG!!" and leave it at that.
>>993827
1. Because this mindset is drilled into us by millions of years of evolution.
2. Because cultural norms and values are the requirement for your society to continue to exist, and are also mostly hereditary.
Imagine there are two cultures. One is very lax with its own cultural values and norms, and takes little effort to drill them into its children. They may even actively hate their own cultural values and ideals. The other is very harsh and traditionalist. It drills its children into the basics of its ideals and tribal thinking every day, they pride themselves on their tribal identity.
What do you think is the likely result of this interaction? Obviously the first tribe will be assimilated by the latter.
What I'm talking about, about tribes and groups and how they work, is not some optional component to how we structure our societies, it is the objective fact of how our societies, no matter the depths of our social engineering, must work.
You can't just exempt yourself from Darwinian selection between groups by fiat.
>>993820
Yeah but the big EU nations also give grants and lend money to the smaller ones to build their industry in that part of the EU for less costs. It can't compete with Asia but then again nobody canncopete with Asia in terms of netting profits.
>>993783
>the EU is faring relatively well.
the EU is dying as we speak, it can't enforce anything, none of it's treaties are enforced anymore, Maastricht or Dublin II for example, all that well meant stuff went out the window at the first opportunity, why make treaties when nobody cares anyway, also they still have no clear solution to the refugee crisis, even tough they knew that it would come years in advance and it has been going on well over a year now, all actually solutions have been spearheaded by single countries, Merkel with her Turkey "deal" which was a simple propaganda stunt and a waste of 6 billion Euro, it's not actually working and it never will and Austria with it's West Balkan conference, which is working in the sense that the route has been closed and will stay closed.
>>993876
I'm not even going to argue with your notions. Get a proper education first.
>>993835
yes you are right all striving for happiness, the fact that some cultures are environmentally conditioned to be savages by the makers of environments, and that people are still ethically and spiritually bankrupt doesn't mean the objective good doesn't exists and that the only way to progress humanity forward isn't a spiritual revolution.
>>993759
Ok, sounds fun
>>993781
But I understand it.
Back to the drawing board for you.
>>993877
We don't live in the 20th century. Assimilation and cultural genocide are banned so we have already evolved past those stages. Apparently some did but their task is to teach the others.
>>993841
Custom can be shared, blood cannot. Look at the problems with countries that multiple ethnic groups. One is almost always in worse shape than the other and it isn't just because of differing treatment, it is because are of different abilities. Even within a tribe there is a hierarchy, these differences are just far less pronounced because they are of similar abilities.
>>993600
well meme'd sir!
>>993889
Yeah sure, okay lad. Be sure to get some cream for your hurt ass on your way out.
>>993919
You can't just pass a law that says "Our social group is invincible and our social policies are eternal".
You have to actively take effort to drill your values into the next generation, and that involves, yes, doing battle with people of other values.
The West has been lulled into this false sense of complacency, where they think their culture and ideology are invincible, and that everything will just gradually lead to utopia if they just stay the course.
That is simply not how social groups work. Darwin still sits in judgment over the tribes of mankind, and the tribes that ignore the rules of the game will eventually get wiped out. By wombs and words, if not with guns.
>>993919
>assimilation is banned
Maybe as an act of war, but you can't change how ideas are spread.
>>993919
How do you ever suppose you get to your idealistic shared customs when assimilation is banned? legit curious what kind of circus you have going on in your head.
>>993902
I never implied there is no such thing as objective good. The hell are you on about?
>>993949
KWOLEDGE
>>993938
>false
>>993938
>actively drill your values into the next generation
Were your parents Korean by any chance?
>>993970
Ah yes, I forgot, we live in fantasy land, where laws and social institutions have power beyond that supplied by the people who believe in them.
All I have to do is scream "TOLERANCE" really, really loud, and all those organized tribal societies with alien values, such as Islam, China, and Russia, will simply disappear and everyone will be college age liberals.
Oh wait. We live on earth, and that is retarded.
>>993981
They were not, I'm white. Why do you ask?
>>993911
I don't understand it. Are you a tranny?
>>993938
>You have to actively take effort to drill your values into the next generation
What values are you specifically mean?
>>993984
calm down spergie,
>everything will just gradually lead to utopia if they just stay the course
It didn't so no utopia for the world
>>993984
We have it written down in paper therefore we're right. I stuck my flag on this piece of earth first therefore it is mine. I made a system of currency that carries with it an implied value therefore use it. I have a set of beliefs that I made up that perfectly reflect my inner thinking therefore you should think the same way.
There is something seriously flawed with our educational system.
>>993989
Nope. It seems like a simple idea
>>993999
Any values! If you want your society to survive, you absolutely have to maintain a tribal mindset.
What makes us, "us"?
What makes them, "them"?
What is our relationship with the various "thems"? Who are our friends? Who are our enemies?
We live in a world where the current reigning civilization, western civilization, has abandoned almost all of its strategic and tactical thinking in terms of its relationship with foreign cultures and foreign value systems.
We have people who honestly believe that everyone is of the same basic beliefs and values deep down. That is total insanity.
It doesn't matter if you want an Islamic society, of a nationalist society, or a liberal society, or a socialist society, or a Christian theocratic society, you absolutely have to maintain at least on some level, a degree of tactical awareness.
Who am I? Who are my friends? Who are my enemies? What is my plan. As a tribe, you have to have people thinking about this stuff, and we, as a rule, do not. We ignore demographic shifts in our societies, we ignore cultural shifts in our societies, we are in short, ignorance and ashamed of everything that allowed us to become powerful enough to be nice, in the first place.
>>993987
Just seems by what you said you grew up in some stringent household typical of East Asian families like Koreans.
>>994013
>We have it written down in paper therefore we're right. I stuck my flag on this piece of earth first therefore it is mine. I made a system of currency that carries with it an implied value therefore use it.
All of these work, piling up rocks and drawing dicks on stone doesn't
>>993477
It made sense when nations were made up mostly of a single people with shared ethnicity, religion and culture. The two could go hand in hand. These days it's more complicated, so maybe.
>>994013
>le eberydings a sooshul konstruct xDD
Enjoying middle school?
>>994014
sure, conceptually, but it doesn't invoke any emotions in me.
>>993477
What a retarded question, you just admitted nationalism main appeal and point then ask for something else.
You need at least a little nationalism, especially now with all the different races and creeds under one roof unless there is something to unite them then they will all begin selfishly looking out for their own self-interests, it's human nature.
Being overly-nationalistic to the point where you begin pushing your weight and excusing atrocities that your victims are a lesser people is the other extreme. The key to success in a society is know when to moderate.
If you truly believe that a national identity does not matter, then I ask if your country were to turn majority Muslim overnight, would you have a problem?
>>993928
Expected from someone like you. No arguments only insults.
>>994075
>gives no arguments only insults
>complains when somebody gives no arguments, but only insults in retaliation
Stay retarded.
>>994075
>You say "I'm not going to argue shitlord, educate yourself"
>That Anon responds with insults
>"How dare you not argue with me after I refused to argue my position!"
>>994030
You're wrong because all of those are the equivalent of piling up rocks and drawing dicks on stone, the understanding of which is derived from the underlying culture. For example one culture might wonder why you would accept currency instead of real money.
>>994088
This is some convoluted retardedness
Are you saying africans piling up rocks might actually be rocket scientists in disguise?
>>994118
No, he's saying that cultural institutions are ultimately arbitrary and many of the things we take for granted as the way of the world are in fact deliberate creations of someone, somewhere.
What he forgets? is that cultural institutions can be graded by their effectiveness, and that if most things in society are socially defined, that means the only thing maintaining our culture is force, not some inherent moral property of the cosmos.
>>993809
little skinny beta nu male detected
>>994013
>Cancer - The Post.
It's like you live in a make believe world that is completely departed from reality. Part of me wishes you could get your wish, and we could just open boarders and allow everyone from poor countries to flood into rich countries, just so I can live with the knowledge, for all intent & purposes, your poison genes probably die with you.
>>994125
I'm not forgetting this personally, I left it out of my comment intentionally because it might overload op.
Warning: /pol/ just linked this thread
>>>/pol/71156274
>>994176
Lol what thread?
>>993477
No.
Nationalism creates clear lines between different people.
Creates conflict.
From conflict comes progress.
But I doubt you would be able to form an argument against this without stuttering and crying.
>>994176
oy vey anudda shoah shut it down
What is wrong with having some nationalist opinions in this thread?
>>994214
wait till you hear what the distinctions created by private property do mah boi
>>994224
t. communist shill
>>994220
It triggers the cucks.
>>994220
Because it brings the infographic spammers like
>>994251
>>994231
I think he's trying to say is that it is a fruitless endeavour to eliminate nationalism because it is an impossibility to avoid conflict all together.
Nationalism is one way to bring people together and so to deny that is to want to wish everyone different. Paradoxically, eliminating nationalism would inevitably by his own reasoning, create conflict which he was trying to avoid in the first place.
>>994257
>Posts one infograph
>THE SANCTITY OF THIS THREAD HAS BEEN TARNISHED!
How is autism by the way?
>>994257
As long as the infographics are relevant and convey the point well I don't see the problem
Multiculturalism is a farce
>>994251
Yep. The creation of /his/ became so full of fear of having to discuss things with the /pol/ boogeyman that this shit just flies.
does anything???
This board needs flags.
I don't get why you're rustled about this thread, /pol/.
No inherent value doesn't mean no value.
>>994407
>pol
>nationalist
oh boy
>>994405
I did a mistake by campaigning for no flags when the board started
Having flags would bust all people with agendas (read: 75% of the arguments)
>>994405
it really does
>>994407
Mentioning anything that sounds like dropping nationalism/borders sends us into violent vision trips of Germany and Sweden getting raped by muslims. Can't help it.
>>994417
Why not make the effort to refute their arguments instead? If they're pushing an agenda instead of telling the truth, it should be easy.
>>993877
>What do you think is the likely result of this interaction? Obviously the first tribe will be assimilated by the latter.
The second tribe actually feels prone to stagnation, less apt to adapt to an evolving context. In fact, that sort of strictness usually isn't all that present in the cultures that are prone to assimilate others. Civilizations were always more "flexible", more inclined to the exchange of culture and products than your average small-time tribes.
A pragmatic mindset beats ideals any day of the week.
>>994430
Ad hominem is all I'm good at tho
>>994427
I think even most of /pol/ would agree with OP though.
Is the nationalism of a random African nation that has no cultural heritage and would frankly be better off balkanizing or maybe even returning to hunter-gathering, worth anything?
No? Then there's no inherent value to nationalism. All value of nationalism comes from the value of the things it's protecting (or trying to protect). I think OP makes a good point.
>>994430
Because it takes 30 minutes between back and forth when you could just notice that the guy saying bulgaria was the best force in the balkans is from bulgaria
>>994439
Well put on your sunnies and don the Australian flag my boy. Shitpost forever and be happy.
>>994444
That wouldn't be a fun thread. That's like asking "what's the value in anything". I'd rather put my own spin on it to illicit responses from people.
>>994444
Everything has a value and that value varies between individuals, wherein you do not value African nationalism whereas an African would value his nationalism. For an African, nationalism would mean that he would put the interests of his countrymen before the interests of outsiders.
Nationalism is valuable collectively since it is a cohesive force for those who it represents which extends as a much broader identity beyond oneself and kinship.
>>994446
That's still an ad hominem. What does it matter if a Bulgarian is the one saying that? Is a poster saying that America has the largest military in the world wrong because he's an American?
>>994473
I guess the discussion then changes to whether we're meant to seek having fun on these threads or just serious philosophical posting all the time.
>>994487
>Everything has a value and that value varies between individuals
That means nothing has inherent value and every value is assigned subjectively by the individuals in question.
>Nationalism is valuable collectively since it is a cohesive force for those who it represents which extends as a much broader identity beyond oneself and kinship.
Therefore nationalism is valuable because it helps us protect a sense of identity, not because the concept of nationalism itself is valuable. On the other hand, why draw the line at nationalism and not go straight towards humanism? Your nation has value only because you think so, and in trying to protect such value the concept of nationalism is created. It's hard to argue that's inherent value for the concept of nationalism.
>>994444
/pol/ fundamentally agrees that blacks are too stupid to grasp the ideals of the enlightenment.
It would be just as beneficial for the African nation to embrace the ideals of the the enlightenment and liberalism for the economic benefits. The problem is that most Africans have not been exposed to these ideals or have been exposed in a limited form through the spread of the gospel.
/pol/ would agree with the premise, if you believe that all 1 billion or so black people on this planet are iredeemably stupid.
>>994506
>That's still an ad hominem
It doesn't help during the argument, it helps before it by making you see which arguments are more probable to be worth spending time on
>>994506
>why draw the line at nationalism and not go straight towards humanism?
because the op was specifically about nation/nationalism/patriotism
>It's hard to argue that's inherent value for the concept of nationalism.
Fostering cooperation has no inherent value? If there are no inherent value and every value is assigned subjectively inst it nice to have multiple people agree on the same thing?
>>993809
>>993477
Nothing has any inherent value beyond the ideals and agreements that it serves.
>>994738
>inherent value
but what does that even mean?
>>994251
>>994068
So can someone explain why so many people in this thread assume that OP was an attack on nationalism? He isn't saying nationalism is bad, at best he's implying that there are (wrongly) applied values to it beyond what he described.
I mean, we all fucking know that nationalism is used as a motive for actions totally beyond what the nation actually stands for/what is in the interest of preserving the nations ideals.
He specifically states that there are certain values, he never says that those values aren't valid.
>>994744
>inherent
I think they are trying to say that there is no value outside of itself to support nationalism blah blah blah
ultimately they are wrong because nationalism fosters cooperation and cooperation is valuable outside of the ideals or principles that encompass nationalism
>>994784
Personally, I did because I miss read the statement.
>I mean, we all fucking know that nationalism is used as a motive for actions totally beyond what the nation actually stands for/what is in the interest of preserving the nations ideals.
Not an argument
>He specifically states that there are certain values, he never says that those values aren't valid.
That's the problem he almost made a question that can't be answered because he tried to phrase it an a self defeating manner.
>can we agree, x has no value outside of what x deems valuable
>muh nationalist spirit
>muh ancestors are watching me
>muh homeland
meaningless drivel. Spooks to control you.
>>994744
Inherent value is a value that is valuable because of itself. It does not require something to back it to be valuable, like precious metals and currency, it is valuable because it is.
>>994601
>/pol/ would agree with the premise, if you believe that all 1 billion or so black people on this planet are iredeemably stupid.
/pol/ has a very mixed view on this
Although we accept that blacks have lower IQs we also accept that there are blacks with IQs above 120
As for racial nationalism in general a Brazilian (I believe) started a thread with a strawpoll and about 70% of those who responded agreed in racial segregation, but not the enslavement or genocide of any other race because of their race, take that to mean what you will.
However my experience is that most /pol/acks simply believe we have a right to our nations being made up of our people
however
>/pol/ fundamentally agrees that blacks are too stupid to grasp the ideals of the enlightenment.
Is true for most pure blacks.
Notable examples are SA and Rhodesia (may it rest in peace)
>>994784
>I mean, we all fucking know that nationalism is used as a motive for actions totally beyond what the nation actually stands for/what is in the interest of preserving the nations ideals.
I agree with this
Nationalism does not inherently mean that a nation has to subdue other nations, however it does mean the nation should be preserved at all costs and improved on as vastly as possible.
Outside of these values then no, nationalism has no value. However if OP means that nationalism has no values and that these values are not worth anything within themselves then I disagree entirely
>>994805
>However if OP means that nationalism has no values
I am OP, I samefagged. That's not what I meant. I simply feel that it's worth getting a clearer definition of the meaning and purpose of nationalism, since it's a term that can be used in very self-defeating ways if it is confused with pure tribalism.
I don't necessarily agree with nationalism though, on a theoretical, naive idealistic level.
I also don't necessarily think nationalism is particularly a driving force for a nation these days, unless a nations identity or existence is being threatened.
>>994804
>meaningless drivel
Not
An
Argument
>>994831
It most definitely is. I'm arguing it is all meaningless. Do you understand this?
>>994805
but its also true that right wing nationalists have lower IQs then left wing socialists. just like the Anal Aids and Rectal Cancer that /pol sprouts but ultimately isnt always true.
>>994802
>>I mean, we all fucking know that nationalism is used as a motive for actions totally beyond what the nation actually stands for/what is in the interest of preserving the nations ideals.
>Not an argument
I'm not making an argument, I'm clarifying why an elaboration on the meaning of nationalism might be worth our while.
>>994830
>unless a nations identity or existence is being threatened.
So Europe then?
>I don't necessarily agree with nationalism though, on a theoretical, naive idealistic level.
I'm open to discussing this if
> I simply feel that it's worth getting a clearer definition of the meaning and purpose of nationalism
Understandable
>>994839
>I'm arguing it is all meaningless
No. You made an assertion without a premise.
Thats not an argument.
>>994841
>right wing nationalists have lower IQs then left wing socialists
Look above 115 IQ, it changes again there.
Its basically the difference between believing
"Fucking niggers are ruining my life" and "Our race has a right to a nation as a homeland that is comprised of our race, we do not need to hate other races for this"
>>994858
>I'm open to discussing this if
you wanted to
>>994858
>unless a nations identity or existence is being threatened.
>So Europe then?
Yes, pretty much. Although, again, the force of this movement is also lending power to leaders that use nationalism(the word/ideal, not the concept) in ways that don't actually directly address the things that threaten the national identity.
>I'm open to discussing this
I dunno if there's much point, I think it's probably going to come down to pretty base difference in priorities.
>understandable
cool, well that was pretty much the idea of the thread, but I suppose I said it in a way that seemed antagonistic.
>>994786
>ultimately they are wrong because nationalism fosters cooperation
Then we're not wrong, because nationalism is only valuable because it serves cooperation (according to you).
And now you also have to prove that cooperation is inherently valuable.
Basically what Nationalism comes down too is I dont want more competion from others in my life.
ie.
The Indian stole my Medical Degree
The Black stole my athletic scholorship.
The Asian stole my engineering job.
So Todays Nationalism isnt like traditional Nationalism where the Nation State is placed above everything else rather its just blaming everything on people who dont look like you or act in the same manner. Prove me wrong /pol.
>>994889
>Yes, pretty much. Although, again, the force of this movement is also lending power to leaders that use nationalism(the word/ideal, not the concept) in ways that don't actually directly address the things that threaten the national identity.
I'd argue the opposite is true
At the moment there are forces trying to erode nationalism within Europe to create a "united states of Europe", we have already seen that with the push for diversity and multiculturalism across Europe along with the Government of the United Kingdom attempting to sway voters by spending 9 million pounds of the taxpayers money to keep the UK in the EU.
There are also George Soros funded groups advertising for this as well, and he is a known marxist and globalist.
The erode of nationalism to form a worldwide nation state with no values outside of acceptance and tolerance of everyone based on their beliefs is the major threat right now.
However historically I agree with you.
>I dunno if there's much point, I think it's probably going to come down to pretty base difference in priorities.
I'm still interested in seeing what your issues with nationalism are
I grew up in a very nationalist household so I've never really been exposed to people who aren't nationalist who weren't brainwashed marxists with no arguments outside of "YOU'RE A FUCKING [buzzword]" so if it doesn't bother you I'd be interested in hearing you out?
>I said it in a way that seemed antagonistic.
Don't worry I come from /pol/
It has as many morons as it does geniuses, I've found its better to stick to attacking whats been said rather than whats been implied.
Also I got here late anyway >>994805 was my first post
>>994930
You have a very limited view of nationalism
>>994930
that seems like a simplification.
I way more often see people use it as an excuse to force other people to conform to values that they have.
"you don't like beef? Beef build this country, if you don't like beef get out of my country"
>>994945
>>994930
Suppose I'll clarify on what I meant by
>You have a very limited view of nationalism
Well for starters
>
So Todays Nationalism isnt like traditional Nationalism where the Nation State is placed above everything else rather its just blaming everything on people who dont look like you or act in the same manner.
Is not nationalism in any way, you can't redefine something to make it fit your argument.
You already stated that it wasn't "traditional" nationalism, however your mistake comes from trying to say that nationalism itself has changed, when blaming others has always been an issue.
Nationalism requires the nation state to be valued by the individual as highly as the individual or higher than the individual.
-t. /pol/ack
>>994846
>I mean, we all fucking know that nationalism is used as a motive for actions totally beyond
what the nation actually stands for/what is in the interest of preserving the nations ideals.
Just because people misuse nationalism as a motive has no bearing on it's own inherent value.
I would say that if we're trying to look for inherent value outside of it's ideals we could to take into consideration an evolutionary approach.
The inherent value here would be genetic success wherein an organism would pass as much of their genetics as possible to future generations. Nationalism would be selective and it would control to a certain extent foreign genetics influencing the population. No need to take into consideration what ideals the group identifies with so long as the ratio of their genetic profile has a higher likelihood of being presented within the identity. For an organism, evolutionarily speaking, it doesn't matter that only the strongest genes get passed on as much as it matters how much of the individual's own genes get passed on.
We could debate that having some foreign influence could not be ruled outright, as detrimental but I feel like I've made a good enough case for the question in mind.
>>994945
so tell me about your expanded Nationalistic view then?
right wing tea party voter
(the communists traitor did it!)
blue collar democrat voter
(the chinese did it!)
different parties same views and opinions
>>993547
This.
>>994945
>I'm still interested in seeing what your issues with nationalism are
It's anti-individual, to an extend. Which I believe is one of the most core virtues people should strive for. I think the ideal national values would be the bare minimum of values needed to not force additional values on the people living within the nation, freedom of speech, religion, ideology, so on. equality of all the people within. thinking of the values of a nation in terms of national values, while obviously fucking obvious and logical, unfortunately seems to create a tendency for people to think "these aren't of the nation, therefor they are a threat to the national values, cause other people that aren't of the nation are a threat to the national values".
I also believe nationalism is divisive, especially in the globalised modern world
I realize this is a really muddy, perhaps incomprehensible post, but it's 4AM here and I'm getting stupid tired.
>>994976
>Just because people misuse nationalism as a motive has no bearing on it's own inherent value.
True, then it's a good thing that no one is making the case that nationalism isn't inherently valuable, just not beyond the elements that actually constitute nationalism.
>>993691
Mr. Rockefeller please leave
>>994986
>right wing tea party voter
>(the communists traitor did it!)
>blue collar democrat voter
>(the chinese did it!)
I'm not from the USA so I won' be able to answer as specifically as someone from there could be able to but I'll try to explain
The two party system, along with all democratic systems, has one flaw which seems to inevitably lead to the death of true nationalism:
People are fucking stupid.
They would rather vote for the easy lie than the difficult truth.
Suppose we take the average person and tell them
A) Their country has a huge flaw from within the country and it will be incredibly difficult to fix, however it is possible.
B) Their country is being exploited by something outwith their own country and it is not their fault or their task to fix it
If you cannot create a compelling argument on both an emotional and intellectual level the voter will vote for the second option, as it requires less work.
This is shown to happen time and time again by people with little to no understanding of politics and it causes parties to regress into this idea of "blame someone else"
Nationalism should always strive to find a way for the people to aid the state in fixing its problems, however people cause the undoing of this when given a vote without being asked to prove they have even a basic understanding of what is going to happen if who they cast their vote for gets into power.
>>995006
>I also believe nationalism is divisive, especially in the globalised modern world
I've honestly never understood why cooperation cannot be compatible with nationalism.
Surely it does not necessarily follow that because you wish your state to be for your people that you cannot work with other states comprised of their own people to improve both states?
In fact it may be better to cooperate on an international scale in terms of scientific advancement for all nationalists as it allows the improvement of one's nation.
cont in next post
>>995032
I hope you're not going to solely adress that point in your next post as it was mostly an aside.
>>993754
>it's manifest destiny is to build an empire that subjugated other lesser nations? That's really repeating the same mistakes of facists and communist countries in the 20th century.
thats like enlightenment thought 101.
The universalist obsessions of liberalism are/were a fucking cancer.
Look at how your most ardent anti-war supporter was so fervently in favour of any run-of-the-mill revolution in Ukraine, or Egypt or Lybia... Any perceived revolt against "opression" is immediatly supported and lauded by people in the west.
>>995006
>these aren't of the nation, therefor they are a threat to the national values, cause other people that aren't of the nation are a threat to the national values"
There's a reason why France resembles an infusion of Germanic and Romantic culture. There's a reason why the U.S. doesn't resemble the culture of the native tribes. Assuming that an influx of foreigners isn't harmful to your ethnic identity, something that most nations were built upon, has more precedent than you can imagine. Then we get into the issue of self-determination and preservation. Nationalistic tendencies have existed from Joan of Arc to Jan Sobieski, Alfred the Great to Robert Bruce and Napoleon.
>>995032
Well in reality politics never really work since a politician is basically a just a person that takes on the worlds imposibilities that in reality will never be fixed and tells people the equal incredibilities on how they will fix litterally everything. How many times have you heard them say we will find a way to cure cancer not that its the most pertitnent or we will make most everybody jobless and educated and instill values that will create a litteral paradise. These things are outside of their power yet people would rather believe in lies and big ones at that and thats a simple truth.
cont from >>995032
> "these aren't of the nation, therefore they are a threat to the national values, cause other people that aren't of the nation are a threat to the national values".
I feel like this is more an abuse of the values promoted by nationalism by the media or government than nationalism itself and is more a flaw natural to humanity than to nationalism.
We have seen it time and time again throughout history and it does not always come from nationalist values.
I believe that we should strive to create homogenous societies that are able to cooperate on an internation scale in terms of trade, information, science, etc, as much as possible as these seem to fit together nicely.
We work for the good of our own and by working with others doing the same thing we further both our goals.
>It's anti-individual, to an extend. Which I believe is one of the most core virtues people should strive for.
I agree with you on the latter however I feel that being individual and being national are not mutually exclusive
Surely one can be individual while striving for the betterment of their nation?
Actually, I would argue, that individualism is compatible with nationalism in terms of the advancement of society
Individualism breeds new ideas which can aid a society; it creates art which reflects a society; and it can even change a society itself.
Allowing the individual to prosper in a nationalist sense (ie that they flourish their own skills for their own betterment, while also striving for the improvement of their nation for the good of both themselves, their family, descendants, and countrymen) seems as though it fits rather nicely.
>>995040
>I hope you're not going to solely adress that point in your next post as it was mostly an aside.
I addressed it first because of that
>>995058
I agree with you entirely, which is why I would propose a testing system which decides whether or not you have the understanding required to make an educated decision, and if it were possible I should also like to stop those who vote for mainly emotional reasons (ie I feel that X is best because my gut says so) from voting.
I mean whether or not what you vote for, in that case, would bring about the desired consequences you have literally no way of knowing that when you vote.
>>993919
you should read The Magic Mountain.
You really sound like a certain italian character fellow in that novel
The type of highly idealistic diatribe is spot on
>>993981
how do you think you got YOUR values?
>>995044
>>I also believe nationalism is divisive, especially in the globalised modern world
>I've honestly never understood why cooperation cannot be compatible with nationalism.
>Surely it does not necessarily follow that because you wish your state to be for your people that you cannot work with other states comprised of their own people to improve both states?
>In fact it may be better to cooperate on an international scale in terms of scientific advancement for all nationalists as it allows the improvement of one's nation.
>cont in next post
This I'm starting to think OP is very confused about what he's trying to refer to us and also what we're responding to him.
>>995061
Dude, the simple fact is that what you are describing requires sacrifice. Some people have a hard enough time sacrificing for their own kin let alone their own countrymen. It ends up being one of those game theory things, nationalism just puts the odds in the favour of cooperation. Simply put a collectivist mindset is more adapt at cooperating than an individualistic one. No way, shape, or how will you own will change this.
>>994021
did you, by any chance, have read Spengler anon?
>>995032
>I've honestly never understood why cooperation cannot be compatible with nationalism.
Because Nationalists (generally) never consider actually helping other nations unless they stand to lose something.
>>993690
Nations are still invented. You take an arbitrary criteria and basically create a common ground around it. Germans, many of whom were strongly nationalistic in the 20th century, had far less common ground than other nations in the 1800s, but they created one.
Who's to say these ideas can't be broadened? People are already playing with the idea of a European nationalism, for better or worse.
Who 'your people' is is actually very flexible.
>>995006
By what definition are you judging Nationalism?
Is it the objectively divisive Nationalism practiced by National Socialists or Mao in his Red Book?
Or is it the nationalism that allowed these ideologies to be repelled? Churchill appealed to British Nationalism to overcome the horror of the blitz, the West staved off Communism by seeing themselves as more than a system of classes at odds with each other.
If you see the increasingly globalized world as some sort of ideal, and Nationalism as some defunct antique way of maintaining the nation, then why is the experiment of the European Union becoming such a increasingly obvious failure that may yet doom Europe to another horrible era of war. This time for far worse and for far longer as the enemy is not clear.
What can you say to the Australian surrounded by growing superpowers with populations that dwarf his country, should he allow open borders in a globalized world? Would his culture survive? Would a hundreds years from now a concept of the Australian still exist after mass immigration, or would he have been sacrificed for a utopia that we have yet to see bear fruits?
>>995088
>the simple fact is that what you are describing requires sacrifice. Some people have a hard enough time sacrificing for their own kin let alone their own countrymen
Why does nationalism imply the sacrifice of the poor to aid the majority?
Surely it is implied in the fact that when you wish to improve your nation in a nationalist fashion you wish to do so for the people who make the nation?
>Simply put a collectivist mindset is more adapt at cooperating than an individualistic one. No way, shape, or how will you own will change this
This is true. I won't argue with you on that, however I would argue that it is not impossible to create a nationalist society with a large amount of individualism, perhaps not as much as is seen in globalist societies but still a very large amount, although I wouldn't be able to draw a line for you.
>>995099
>Because Nationalists (generally) never consider actually helping other nations unless they stand to lose something.
Why is it implied that you cannot help another nation while furthering you own cause?
Surely if two, or more, nations were to cooperate to develop technology that would better all of these nations individually then nationalist states would be more than happy to do this?
>>995109
>Who 'your people' is is actually very flexible.
I believe your people are those who share your values and who share your race.
So although I may believe that another ethnic Scot is completely against me in terms of ideology, as long as he is willing to work for the betterment of our people at large, then he is still one of my people.
However I would also assert that someone who is not of your race cannot be one of your people, even if they share your ideals in a broad sense, at the same level as the former example due to genetics and the inherent desire to see your race continue and thrive, which has come about as a result of millions of years of evolution.
Although this should not necessarily prevent cooperation.
>>995109
This.
Most people don't realize this, but "nations" are a spook. Austrians used to consider themselves Germans, Prussians were once Teutonic knights, then became Prussians, then Germans, Americans were British subjects. Greeks were Helens, then Romans, then back to Helens, etc.
>>995079
Yes that would be one solution. Also making voting mandatory is better in my view since it would eliminate over and underrepresentation and at least force some more people to be engaged.
>>995061
>I feel like this is more an abuse of the values promoted by nationalism by the media or government than nationalism itself and is more a flaw natural to humanity than to nationalism.
Yes, Fair enough, it's not really nationalism, but it certainly is something that exploits the concept. It's probably the reason this thread exists more than anything. This goes both ways though, the media can abuse the concept of nationalism to promote this idea, just as much as it can abuse that Idea to attack nationalism.
>I believe that we should strive to create homogenous societies that are able to cooperate on an internation scale in terms of trade, information, science, etc, as much as possible as these seem to fit together nicely.
I don't know of any evidence to suggest that homogenous societies are more capable/successful/happy, but I have not looked into the stats. Maybe you know more? You said yourself that individualism breeds new ideas, diverse cultures are more likely to contribute new ideas to the collective
>We work for the good of our own and by working with others doing the same thing we further both our goals.
Yeah, another issue I have. I don't particularly feel that people living near me are any more "my own" than those living 5000 miles away with slightly more foreign genetics.
>I agree with you on the latter however I feel that being individual and being national are not mutually exclusive
I don't see how it ultimately doesn't end up being just a little bit exclusive. a nation is nothing without the people that live in it, so if you're nationalistic you're trying to preserve, and ultimately enforce ideals. The ideals of a nation could purely be the preservation of the rights to be equal individuals with the right to all these things, but then there's no unifying identity around which nationalism could be a motivator.
text made this point a bit less elegant than it could have been, so fill in blanks in the argument yourself if you can.
>>995109
>Who 'your people' is is actually very flexible
not really.
it has followed certain specific traits over all of human history.
Its mostly primarily defined by language, religion, moral codes and customs (cultural praxis)
>>995127
>I believe your people are those who share your values and who share your race
The first always trumps the second, I have far more in common and brotherhood with a third generation Asian speaking with a Aussie drawl than a White Muslim from the Middle East who wants to implement Sharia.
A homogenous society with multiple races can be achieved I believe, but a multicultural society I have yet to see reach actual harmony as there is always friction. You end up with parts of cities being entirely Lebanese or Chinese because the first impulse of the immigrant is to seek out the familiar. Unfortunately rather than encourage integration into the dominant culture like we have done in previous eras we have encouraged """"diversity"""", which we have seen turn parts of each city into colonies from other countries that do not interact, there is no sense of brotherhood. In the worst of cases you end up with no-go zones for authorities when the people truly feel distinct from the country and will fight for independence in a foreign land, this is a country on the verge of collapse.
>>995127
Why is it implied that you cannot help another nation while furthering you own cause?
Because Nationalism is inherently about helping *your* nation.
>Surely if two, or more, nations were to cooperate to develop technology that would better all of these nations individually then nationalist states would be more than happy to do this?
That doesnt make any sense whatsoever. Why would, say, the US, work with and develop with other nations some sort of new tech that could potentially create a complete lockdown when it comes to stealth technology for jets and planes and what not? What would the British stand to gain from freely sharing information that could potentially crippling a rival nation that would benefit Britain from a geopolitical standpoint?
Why would any nationalist state ever work against it's own interests by working with other nations?
I'm curious as to how you define a nationalist state. Who composes it?. I disagree with you, but I want to understand.
>>995127
>Why does nationalism imply the sacrifice of the poor to aid the majority?
Never said this and I'm not sure where this notion came from.
>Surely it is implied in the fact that when you wish to improve your nation in a nationalist fashion you wish to do so for the people who make the nation?
Yes by virtue of their shared identity, again I should reiterate that this might have something to do with the psychology behind game theory. Where two actors will cooperate only when they maximise their benefit and minimize being taken advantage of. The risk for cooperating is vastly mitigated by the shared identity, in the same way that you'd help kin before you'd help strangers.
>>995145
>I don't know of any evidence to suggest that homogenous societies are more capable/successful/happy
For me this is more about preserving diversity than killing it
If we all come together then we will lose a large amount of the gene pool, we can only have a limited number within our body (the number escapes me at the moment I think its 42)
Surely by preserving different cultures and maintaining relationships with other nations that spread different ideas from each culture we can strive to better our own and share what makes our own better with the rest of the world, however what we take in would also be dictated by what our people want, just as it would for every other nation.
this creates a global diversity and, with the technology we have today, this diversity can allow for the sharing of new ideas.
>I don't see how it ultimately doesn't end up being just a little bit exclusive
I agree in the fashion that you cannot have the same level of individualism in a nationalist nation as you can in a globalist one, however I don't feel that nationalism kills individualism to any major degree, just on the levels of serving your people
>I don't particularly feel that people living near me are any more "my own" than those living 5000 miles away with slightly more foreign genetics.
Although this would be true if we all shared the same culture I think you'd find that you'll have a very different opinion if you come into contact with someone who values Sharia over your own laws.
>>995158
>The first always trumps the second
On an individual level I agree with you
However there is also a desire to see the continuation of your blood line and blood lines like yours.
Also I feel that part of why cultures comes about is due to bloodlines/race/genetics.
Though I won't attempt to prove it or argue any point made to disprove it.
>>995173
>when it comes to stealth technology for jets and planes and what not?
in terms of military technology you're correct
cont in next post
>>995145
>Yeah, another issue I have. I don't particularly feel that people living near me are any more "my own" than those living 5000 miles away with slightly more foreign genetics.
You don't particularly because of globalization. You haven't lived through a period of time where your life depends on cooperation with your neighbours or people within a close-sih proximity.
>>995182
>Also I feel that part of why cultures comes about is due to bloodlines/race/genetics.
which is why America is basically Great Britain 2.0, right?
Oh wait.
There is only one nation: the nation of the self. There is no higher purpose other than one's own. There is no cause an individual must adhere to other than their own.
>>995184
>You don't particularly because of globalization. You haven't lived through a period of time where your life depends on cooperation with your neighbours or people within a close-sih proximity.
And I never will, there's not much point in that statement.
cont from >>995182
however in terms of the advancements of medicines and technology that benefits people in terms of comfort and leisure then it is not at all at odds with a nationalist sate at all
>>995173
>I'm curious as to how you define a nationalist state. Who composes it?
People compose it, I won't draw a line for who "people" are as every nationalist state will have slight, or major, differences in this idea.
However every person in the nationalist state would work towards the betterment of their state
>>995177
>Never said this and I'm not sure where this notion came from.
The part I quoted seemed to imply that the poor would need to sacrifice as much as the majority when this is simply not necessarily true.
>The risk for cooperating is vastly mitigated by the shared identity, in the same way that you'd help kin before you'd help strangers.
I agree with this however I also don't see any major issue with it?
>>995189
>which is why America is basically Great Britain 2.0, right?
>Oh wait.
The whites in the USA are mainly of German origin, and there is a massive melting pot of different culture within the USA.
I also didn't imply that these genetics would always lead to the same values, just that certain values and cultures would only be able to be brought about from influence by that race
Different circumstances would change what is brought about
However I'm sure you'd agree the Chinese and British would find a different solution for many problems?
>>995204
>The whites in the USA are mainly of German origin, and there is a massive melting pot of different culture within the USA.
Meant to say races here. not culture
>>995182
>>995204
>in terms of military technology you're correct'
More like in terms of any technology. Any thing that can be used domestically, can be used Militarily.
>People compose it, I won't draw a line for who "people" are as every nationalist state will have slight, or major, differences in this idea.
No shit. I asked YOU, what YOUR standards were.
>However every person in the nationalist state would work towards the betterment of their state
This has never happened, not even in completely, or near completely homogeneous nations. Its little more than a pipe dream.
And you failed to address my question:
Why would any nationalist state ever work against it's own interests by working with other nations?
>>995227
>More like in terms of any technology. Any thing that can be used domestically, can be used Militarily.
A cure for cancer can be used by the military?
A cure for HIV can be used by the military?
Anything medicinal at all is to the betterment of everyone, although work on poisons etc I can see why it would be avoided
>No shit. I asked YOU, what YOUR standards were.
My standards for my people are white British people, specifically Celts and Anglo Saxons
>This has never happened, not even in completely, or near completely homogeneous nations. Its little more than a pipe dream.
This is true of every idea
Perfection is impossible
>Why would any nationalist state ever work against it's own interests by working with other nations?
I thought I did address it
work with them in ways that do not necessitate a military advancement in order to improve the lives of your own and the state of your nation
There's no argument to justify nationalism for its own sake.
All humans have common ancestors, so there's no way to justify putting importance on a whole nation while also leaving out all other humans, all other mammals, all other vertebrates, all other animals, all other eukaryotes, all other living matter, all other non-living matter...
There's no reason to stop the "cooperation" at people who look like you or have a vague notion of common heritage.
The concept of neatly defined nations with their borders, languages, cultures and everything else might sound appealing to our brains on an instinctual level (as we love categories), but the real world just doesn't work that way. There's always going to be vague definitions and ambiguities, people that identify better with their neighbors across a border than their own nationals hundreds of miles away, infinite combinations of ethnicities/languages/religions/traditions that will only leave you wondering when to stop drawing increasingly unhelpful lines.
There's nothing wrong with categories, but we must be aware that they are all in our heads and don't really exist.
>>995203
>And I never will, there's not much point in that statement.
You may, if nationalism ever brings us Nucear WW3 and you manage to survive.
It'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy, like pottery.
>>995244
>All humans have common ancestors, so there's no way to justify putting importance on a whole nation while also leaving out all other humans, all other mammals, all other vertebrates, all other animals, all other eukaryotes, all other living matter, all other non-living matter...
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/ways-dna-test-can-change-your-world-view-rac/
>>995182
>If we all come together then we will lose a large amount of the gene pool
That isn't how genes work
>>995257
>That isn't how genes work
Are you saying that a lot of submissive (forgot if thats the actual term -- its been a while since I took bio) wouldn't have a far greater chance of being taken out of the gene pool with a far larger group of dominant alleles to replace them?
Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding something here? Genuine question.
>>995249
Don't worry, I won't survive
>>995249
>You may, if nationalism ever brings us Nucear WW3 and you manage to survive.
Globalism is causing more conflicts at the moment than nationalism buddy
See Europe
>>995227
Didn't see this:
>however in terms of the advancements of medicines and technology that benefits people in terms of comfort and leisure then it is not at all at odds with a nationalist sate at all
What. Its completely at odds.
If A nation finds a way to increase survivability, why would they share that with another nation, in case they go to war? Why help keep enemy combatants alive?
Or what about a way to improve the transport of materials? Why help another nation improve its logistics? No nation wants its foes to have more food, bullets, guns, clothes, and warm bodies to use them.
Communications? Why let them organize and fight back better than ever?
>>995242
A cure for cancer can be used by the military?
A cure for HIV can be used by the military?
What is biological warfare, for 200, Anon?
>My standards for my people are white British people, specifically Celts and Anglo Saxons
I dont know why this is so difficult for you.
For a nationalist state, what is the criterion to determine actual members of said state, and not merely people who live within the realms of the state, according to you.
>This is true of every idea
No, not really. cincinnatus was the model of public virtue. He could not have possibly done better.
>I thought I did address it
No, because again, anything can be used militarily.
>>995256
How does that matter? Not only did I not say that I don't think races exist, but even if I take the dubious claims from that page at face value, the fact that we have a common origin doesn't change, no matter how far back you push it in the evolutionary line.
>>995271
But that's Islamic/Arabic nationalism.
>>995204
However I'm sure you'd agree the Chinese and British would find a different solution for many problems?
Absoluty, but its asinine to say that the solution is because of genetics
A people with a history of backstabbing and cheating are going to backstab and cheat of course, but thats due to an extensive history and culture that propagates said culture, unless you can show me that a race have a particular sequence in their genetic makeup that makes them perfidious.
>>995261
Not that anon, I think you mean recessive not submissive, and the genes would still be in the gene pool, just shuffled around between different individuals. The recessive/dominance thing is about how the genes are expressed not how they are inherited, Two people with Xx genotype have 50% chance of a child with Xx and a 25% chance for both XX and xx. If X = brown hair and x = red hair, then there is a 75% chance that the child would have brown hair phenotype.
>>995272
>For a nationalist state, what is the criterion to determine actual members of said state, and not merely people who live within the realms of the state, according to you.
I did define it
White Brits living in Britain right now who are Anglo Saxon or Celtic descent
Or do you want me to define it based on their ideals? I see that as self defeating to the purpose of an ever advancing state
>>995280
So you're saying because around 40 million years back our ancestors were fish we are all essentially the same?
>>995287
>unless you can show me that a race have a particular sequence in their genetic makeup that makes them perfidious.
I don't which is why I said I won't debate it
I looked, at one time, for proof either way and couldn't find any
>
If A nation finds a way to increase survivability, why would they share that with another nation, in case they go to war? Why help keep enemy combatants alive?
Okay so theres no reason for a nationalist state to do anything other than basic trade with another nation.
I'll cede that
>cincinnatus was the model of public virtue
Not educated on the subject so I can't comment
But has there ever been a political ideology that has been implemented to perfection? I would seriously doubt that,
Unless the model of civic virtue is a political ideology in which case I'd argue it is a very rare exception.
>>995291
>I think you mean recessive not submissive
Yes I did, thanks anon.
>>995291
>75% chance that the child would have brown hair phenotype.
and say 75% of the population do not have the red hair phenotype does this not reduce the chances of it continuing for a longer period far shorter as the recessive allele has less of a chance of being prominent? Again, genuine question.
>>995334
I'm saying that no matter where you draw the line, it's going to be arbitrary.
Because nature doesn't work with categories and every variation is always a continuum until things get artificially categorized.
>>995334
>and say 75% of the population do not have the red hair phenotype does this not reduce the chances of it continuing for a longer period far shorter as the recessive allele has less of a chance of being prominent? Again, genuine question.
In a large population, it would be less likely that two heterozygous carriers would ever meet and make children and would make the gene less prominent. However, it would never leave the gene pool unless everyone who carried the gene died without having children.
>>995334
meant to tag >>995272 here
>
If A nation finds a way to increase survivability, why would they share that with another nation, in case they go to war? Why help keep enemy combatants alive?
Okay so theres no reason for a nationalist state to do anything other than basic trade with another nation.
I'll cede that
also on the note of
>unless you can show me that a race have a particular sequence in their genetic makeup that makes them perfidious.
There is evidence to suggest an altruistic gene and, although I won't say that it is racially defined itself, it would suggest that genetics do have a role in your character
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/is_there_an_altruism_gene
Note the source for the article is given in the article, I just felt it was a decent commentary
>>995358
>it's going to be arbitrary.
Agreed, however see above for my argument as to why our characters could be different based off of evolution and genetic differences
>>995362
Thanks for the clarification anon
>>995368
Also I'd like to add I don't feel my argument is in any way conclusive, its far more on the side of speculation until more evidence arises.
>>995334
>and say 75% of the population do not have the red hair phenotype does this not reduce the chances of it continuing for a longer period far shorter as the recessive allele has less of a chance of being prominent?
No, because the gene's are still in the gene pool at the same frequency (this is excluding selection pressures), this is also why they haven't gone extinct already. A child from Xx and xx parents would have a 50% chance of having red hair. So unless the prominence of the phenotype has a major impact on the fitness of the individual it wouldn't change the frequency of the allele in the gene pool. but for the example of hair colour there could potentially be an influence from sexual selection either in increasing or decreasing the frequency.
>>995283
Just noticed this
I'd say youre 50% right, however I also believe that even if they weren't from an imperialistic society the differences in our cultures being as vast as they are would eventually lead to the same issues we have, or similar ones
>>995368
>Agreed, however see above for my argument as to why our characters could be different based off of evolution and genetic differences
I'm not saying we're not different though.
Of course I'm more different from a black african from the Central African Republic than from my next-door neighbor. But where does that "different" become a different nation? The only lines there are are artificial, nature works in gradients.
>>995406
it becomes a different nation based off the lines individuals and groups draw
>>995334
>I did define it
>White Brits living in Britain right now who are Anglo Saxon or Celtic descent
So let me get this straight: any nationalist state must, according to you, be comprised of white brits of celtic or AS decent? Thats it? That doesnt make any sense. "White anglos/celts" isnt a nationality. It is, at best, an ethnicity.
>Okay so theres no reason for a nationalist state to do anything other than basic trade with another nation. I'll cede that
I cannot express how absurd it is to see you support Nationalism, and then not seem to realize on your own why it would limit partnership with other nations. Its more absurd than you asserting that Nationalist states would actually share and work with other nations.
>But has there ever been a political ideology that has been implemented to perfection? I would seriously doubt that,
I just gave you an example.
>Unless the model of civic virtue is a political ideology in which case I'd argue it is a very rare exception.
>What is the Nerva-Antonine dynasty?
>>995199
SHOO SHOO SPOOKBUSTER
>>995419
>any nationalist state must, according to you, be comprised of white brits of celtic or AS decent? Thats it? That doesnt make any sense. "White anglos/celts" isnt a nationality. It is, at best, an ethnicity.
No. I already stated earlier ITT that every nationlist state would define itself differently
>and then not seem to realize on your own why it would limit partnership with other nations
Tbqh I never considered the idea of biological warfare when thinking about it
>But has there ever been a political ideology that has been implemented to perfection? I would seriously doubt that,
>I just gave you an example.
As I said i'm not educated on the subject and I wasn't aware of what it was, I asked you if it was one.
>What is the Nerva-Antonine dynasty?
Again my knowledge of history outside my own nation's is below par so it'd help me out if you linked articles on both of those
Also how many other examples can you think of and do you honestly believe they were implemented to perfection?
And how many examples of political ideals can you think of that have fallen flat?
A handful of exceptions does not defeat the rule
>>995413
Which are arbitrary.
The gradients are both more useful and more accurate. We create those lines because of human nature, only because it's easier to think in categories.
>>995404
>the differences in our cultures being as vast as they are would eventually lead to the same issues we have, or similar ones
Of course, conflict is bound to happen even without cultural differences, so cultural clashes would still be troublesome regardless.
But I don't see how accentuating the lines is supposed to help us deal with the problem instead of making it more volatile.
But if you are competing against opponents that have that card, you only end at a disadvantage
>>995464
>But I don't see how accentuating the lines is supposed to help us deal with the problem instead of making it more volatile.
By separating different cultures we would surely avoid a huge amount of the issues we have today?
I mean surely if you want to take a step away from both nationalism and globalism in their pure forms you can have nations sharing common markets, perhaps even currency, while maintaining borders, in order to drive down the feeling of "Us or them"
>Which are arbitrary.
Agreed.
>We create those lines because of human nature
Are you saying working against human nature in one of its most basic forms is a good idea? Genuine question as I cant see the benefits of //totally// working against our own nature
>>995467
>But if you are competing against opponents that have that card, you only end at a disadvantage
We're setting the premise that everyone would be following one or the other for this debate, although its not been explicitly stated its the only way most of what has been said holds up
>>995453
>No. I already stated earlier ITT that every nationlist state would define itself differently
Right, im done with this line of response. Clearly we have two separate ideas of what nationalism is.
>Tbqh I never considered the idea of biological warfare when thinking about it
I never would have guessed.
>As I said i'm not educated on the subject and I wasn't aware of what it was, I asked you if it was one.
You couldnt google Cincinnatus a read at least the wiki?
>Again my knowledge of history outside my own nation's is below par so it'd help me out if you linked articles on both of those
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva%E2%80%93Antonine_dynasty
"If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic, had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."
>Also how many other examples can you think of and do you honestly believe they were implemented to perfection?
Several
>And how many examples of political ideals can you think of that have fallen flat?
Several
>A handful of exceptions does not defeat the rule
How many times must a rule be defied before it is not a rule. The very fact that the rule has been broken prove that it not a rule. It it likely, but it is not the first answer.
>>995481
Not that anon.
>By separating different cultures we would surely avoid a huge amount of the issues we have today?
Tell that to India and Pakistan, or the ongoing fighting between tribals in the Middle East that Westerns continue to try to separate.
>Are you saying working against human nature in one of its most basic forms is a good idea?
You assume that because we do something "naturally", then it is right, or correct. That is not that case.
>>995467
That's a fair point, but conflict breeds more conflict. Unless "we" are prepared to genocide everyone else (and we shouldn't, think of all the loss of life and cultural heritage), we should find a way to defuse the conflict and neuter the conflictive group(s) within "their" society(/ies). Maybe even help their countries stop being shit so that immigration stops being such an inviting alternative.
But I know that's just idealism. If I had a concrete solution I'd be speaking about it in the UN. Or maybe not, actually fuck that place.
>>995481
>By separating different cultures we would surely avoid a huge amount of the issues we have today?
But that's not gonna happen. As long as "the first world" is such a better place to live, envy will drive fringe groups into terrorism/conquest and restart the conflict.
>Are you saying working against human nature in one of its most basic forms is a good idea?
Not really, but we should acknowledge it and make our decisions while fully aware of that fact.
>>995491
>Right, im done with this line of response. Clearly we have two separate ideas of what nationalism is.
your idea of nationalism has nothing to do with a nation defining itself and working towards the betterment of itself?
I can see why you'd be having difficulty if thats the case.
>I never would have guessed.
I overlooked something, sue me.
>You couldnt google Cincinnatus a read at least the wiki?
I assumed the wiki wouldn't give me enough knowledge to challenge anything you said on it
>How many times must a rule be defied before it is not a rule
More than would be allowed by uncertainty.
Going back in human history there have been countless political ideologies
Some of these would be far more basic and therefore easier to implement fully, others far more complex and harder to implement fully
Although I'm sure you'll agree that a full implementation is not necessarily perfect.
but regardless of that a rule is broken when the uncertainty value is shown not to account for exceptions to the rule
>>995503
>Tell that to India and Pakistan
You're saying that people outwith the society drawing these lines means the lines aren't good for the people within it?
Damn thats a great analogy.
>You assume that because we do something "naturally", then it is right, or correct. That is not that case.
Read the sentence directly after that
>>995525
But that's not gonna happen. As long as "the first world" is such a better place to live, envy will drive fringe groups into terrorism/conquest and restart the conflict.
Agreed, however in an ideal situation economically speaking keeping completely different cultures apart prevents conflict between them
>Not really, but we should acknowledge it and make our decisions while fully aware of that fact.
Agreed. However I would also say that going totally against our nature is a bad idea as it can cause people to feel uneasy
Anyway /his/ it has been fun
I'm going to try and sleep now since its 5am
I'm >>995544
Have a nice night and thanks for the conversation
>>995544
>your idea of nationalism has nothing to do with a nation defining itself and working towards the betterment of itself?
>I can see why you'd be having difficulty if thats the case.
No, you silly nigger, i've asked you repeatedly for your criterion for nationalism, which i've failed to receive. My criterion is a group within a geographic area being connected by a common thread aggressively pursuing autonomy, power, whathaveyou for said group.
>I overlooked something, sue me.
You overlooked a fundamental flaw in your assertion, and an incredibly obvious one at that.
>but regardless of that a rule is broken when the uncertainty value is shown not to account for exceptions to the rule
>I dont have a solid number, but your examples are just exceptions, they dont count!
>You're saying that people outwith the society drawing these lines means the lines aren't good for the people within it?
What.
>Read the sentence directly after that
I did, and as usual, it highlights the obvious fact that you fail to think things through.
>>994858
> "Our race has a right to a nation as a homeland that is comprised of our race
It doesn't though
>>995552
Thank you too m8, I had a lot of fun too.
