shirgall Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Why not? Nationalism makes sense when a nation has shared values, especially when those values are based on reason and evidence. No nation has ever reached this state (pun intended). 1 1
edtech Posted January 9, 2016 Author Posted January 9, 2016 Nationalism makes sense when a nation has shared values, especially when those values are based on reason and evidence. No nation has ever reached this state (pun intended). Does a nation make sense without shared values?
DCLugi Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Define a nation. What are the physical attributes? 1 1
adamNJ Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Yes, A nation is a group of people of the same race and culture. I see nationalism as a big gated community, where you enter into a contract and abide by the rules, or face ostracism and be cast out. It is also like a University in that they are selective of who they let in. White nationalists, want a nation for white majority population but not exclusively white. 1 1
DCLugi Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Yes, A nation is a group of people of the same race and culture. I see nationalism as a big gated community, where you enter into a contract and abide by the rules, or face ostracism and be cast out. It is also like a University in that they are selective of who they let in. White nationalists, want a nation for white majority population but not exclusively white. Not sure why you were down voted so I played equalizer and up voted. So the geographical area of a nation is legitimately owned and all members sign a voluntary contract. If we remove race and culture and replace with values and virtues will it still stand as a nation?
Will Torbald Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Why not? If your nation is evil, you're supporting evil. If your nation is virtuous, you'd be supporting virtue. Some nations are more evil than others, and some are not so evil. At the very least you can be nationalist when comparing yourself to a hell-hole nation as long as you know it's not in the absolute. 1
dsayers Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Why not? Nationalism is a proposition. The onus is on whomever is putting it forward. So the question becomes why, not why not. Answer this, and the why not will become clear. 1
Des Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Why not? Because the interests of most of the people (each of whom who prefers his nearer kin over his further kin [i.e. he has evolutionary inclination to prefer his nation over other nations]) - are actually better served by associating with non-nationals who follow compatible standards of behaviour. For example, If a small suburb had mostly people of one national group, as residents, most would serve their personal interests well by inviting in a skilled (but less closely-related) practitioner of some service they require, and offering in return, full membership of their association. Conversely, most of them would serve their own personal interests better by expelling a close kinsman who refuses to reform from his ways of armed robbery. With inviting in incompatible behaviour, there would be a trade-off, e.g. How badly does the community need a doctor? They are vegans, and the doctor is going to barbecue steaks in his backyard every weekend. The issue is incompatibility, in the case where each "citizen" is considering his interests wrt to available services and wrt upholding his preferred norms of behaviour. 1
shirgall Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Does a nation make sense without shared values? Makes it harder to justify as a "collective" of any sort at that point.
John CEFD Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Nationalism is an double-edge sword: on one side it can be used to strengthen a people's will to endure in face of external agression or big catastrophe, or even to reinforce/save traditional values that are in danger; but it can also be used to, you know, support dictators or cults of personality suchs Mao, Stálin, Mussolini etc.Don't get me wrong, i'm a libertarian and anti-State individual, but it is important to not condemn straight away nationalism in this statist world: some nations/States are better than others. So i tend to analyze nationalism in an strategic manner. For instance: i tend to support western democracies (even though i loathe the concepct of democracy, that is, public owned government) and even to the point (sometimes) of their military build up, specially when facing China/Russia/Iran etc. And, on the cultural level, i tend to support Donald Trump (yes, yes, he's a minarchist and probably a little crony-minded), because the werstern tradition is on severe fire by those "cultural marxists" (you get the idea), and he's the one who's been out there fighting the barbarians inside the gate. And this is really serious, in my home country, Brazil, we've had an left-wing intelectual hegemony for the last 40 years, and the damage is so severe we're still struggling to get an reaction on action, but there's been considerable success. Just to show you guys, things here were so complicated and the left-wing movemente so strong that they even have a continental take-over plan (through organizations such as the São Paulo Forum, founded by Lula, yes, our former president, and Fidel Castro in 1990) to make a new USSR here in latin-america (Fidel Castro's words). Plus the unimaginable intellectual damage to the nation, it's gonna take years to take some sanity back to universities here... If we had a guy like Donald Trump running for president here, it would be a blessing, someone who would speak up to the socialist stablishment with all the economic and ideological support he has... Americans should be glad they have someone like him, 'cause here we are still closed on the left-wing clutches and still trying to get some traditional right-wing nationalism back on track.
sweathog1 Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Used to think some thought nationalism was bad while patriotism was good, with regard to the American empire. Then we got globalism.
adamNJ Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Not sure why you were down voted so I played equalizer and up voted. So the geographical area of a nation is legitimately owned and all members sign a voluntary contract. If we remove race and culture and replace with values and virtues will it still stand as a nation? Thanks!, Now I dont think you can swap those 4 categories since they are not mutually exclusive, meaning that you could have culture (food, music, etiquette), race, values and virtues coexisting inside the same nation. Also nationalism does not violate the NAP, it is people voting who they want their neighbors to be. Imagine a seasteading community, at first they will take in whoever believes in the NAP, but over time the asians will gravitate towards the asians and the whites towards the whites.
DCLugi Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Thanks!, Now I dont think you can swap those 4 categories since they are not mutually exclusive, meaning that you could have culture (food, music, etiquette), race, values and virtues coexisting inside the same nation. Also nationalism does not violate the NAP, it is people voting who they want their neighbors to be. Imagine a seasteading community, at first they will take in whoever believes in the NAP, but over time the asians will gravitate towards the asians and the whites towards the whites. Would that be mostly based on race or simply convenient commonalities of culture? I wonder how much division takes place out of fear. If we've all agreed on the NAP then variety might have a sweeter taste to it.
Donnadogsoth Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Thanks!, Now I dont think you can swap those 4 categories since they are not mutually exclusive, meaning that you could have culture (food, music, etiquette), race, values and virtues coexisting inside the same nation. Also nationalism does not violate the NAP, it is people voting who they want their neighbors to be. Imagine a seasteading community, at first they will take in whoever believes in the NAP, but over time the asians will gravitate towards the asians and the whites towards the whites. What do you suppose is the biggest factor in suppressing "explicit whiteness"--whites thinking and talking in explicit terms about their preferences to live among their own kind? Many whites think "implicitly white" whereby they'll execute white flight for example, but the "I prefer white people/white neighbourhood," or even the tamer "I would only date a white person" is still verboten.
edtech Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 Nationalism is voluntaryism with balls.
n1d0 Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 A lot of people do not seem to have a lot of problems with nationalism here, which surprises me. When we would have a free market society, borders become rather meaningless if I'm not mistaken? Don't get me wrong, we have compulsory voting (enforced) here and I voted for the Flemish Nationalists, because there isn't really a better alternative. How do you guys see nationalism work in a free market society? With nationalism, wouldn't there be a rise of organisation(s) which relies on force to put out its cultural values etc.? Is nationalism not like a government: forcefully expansive? Yes, I have read various definitions of nationalism, and that is why this concerns me. It is a very broad term.
rosencrantz Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Nationalism is a product of the French Revolution. When the Prussians, Austrians, and a bunch of others invaded France to reinstitute the King the situation looked pretty dire for a while. The solution of the convent was to rile up the feelings of the citizens (read the lyrics of the Marseillaise for an idea how that worked). The gullible people joined the army and eventually defeated the Allies. Before the levée en masse, wars were seen as a private problem of the respective king. You as a single person had no stake in it. But following the French Revolution, the state began to make efforts to make people think they were part of a larger whole and not only single people living in a geographical region. As a result of the Napoleonic wars, Germany, Prussia, and Austria copied the French method of propaganda and making their people believe they had to unite and fight off those evil French people. This resulted in millions of death, whole generations were lost. 1
edtech Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 How do you guys see nationalism work in a free market society? With nationalism, wouldn't there be a rise of organisation(s) which relies on force to put out its cultural values etc.? Is nationalism not like a government: forcefully expansive? How do you see it working without it?
Donnadogsoth Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 A lot of people do not seem to have a lot of problems with nationalism here, which surprises me. When we would have a free market society, borders become rather meaningless if I'm not mistaken? Don't get me wrong, we have compulsory voting (enforced) here and I voted for the Flemish Nationalists, because there isn't really a better alternative. How do you guys see nationalism work in a free market society? With nationalism, wouldn't there be a rise of organisation(s) which relies on force to put out its cultural values etc.? Is nationalism not like a government: forcefully expansive? Yes, I have read various definitions of nationalism, and that is why this concerns me. It is a very broad term. Why couldn't nationalism be "forcefully expansive" using the power of peer pressure? Would the end result differ much?
n1d0 Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 How do you see it working without it? A government without nationalism? I don't, because all kinds of government use some kind of nationalist propaganda. A government 'governs' a nation, right? Why couldn't nationalism be "forcefully expansive" using the power of peer pressure? Would the end result differ much? Again, in a free market society, would there be a need of borders? Need of a nation? I see a free market society emphasizing on cultural values, morality, ethics... But not the virtue of 'nation'. EDIT: Why would individuals have a need of nation? Quote from rosencrantz in this thread. Nationalism is a product of the French Revolution. When the Prussians, Austrians, and a bunch of others invaded France to reinstitute the King the situation looked pretty dire for a while. The solution of the convent was to rile up the feelings of the citizens (read the lyrics of the Marseillaise for an idea how that worked). The gullible people joined the army and eventually defeated the Allies. Before the levée en masse, wars were seen as a private problem of the respective king. You as a single person had no stake in it. But following the French Revolution, the state began to make efforts to make people think they were part of a larger whole and not only single people living in a geographical region. As a result of the Napoleonic wars, Germany, Prussia, and Austria copied the French method of propaganda and making their people believe they had to unite and fight off those evil French people. This resulted in millions of death, whole generations were lost.
Donnadogsoth Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 A government without nationalism? I don't, because all kinds of government use some kind of nationalist propaganda. A government 'governs' a nation, right? Again, in a free market society, would there be a need of borders? Need of a nation? I see a free market society emphasizing on cultural values, morality, ethics... But not the virtue of 'nation'. EDIT: Why would individuals have a need of nation? Quote from rosencrantz in this thread. Nations provide psychological stability. A purely free market society would be an atomising nightmare of psychosocial dislocation. Addiction rates to healthy, and increasingly unhealthy, behaviours would go through the roof. Nations bind people together--look at what happened when the North American aboriginals had their nations forcibly deleted, they became vulnerable to drug addiction in a way they were resistant to before. And I'm not bashing them, they're making strides in getting out of that condition, but I'm pointing out that when we lose a whole greater than ourselves, we collapse into spiritual poverty. "Free market" ain't a whole greater than ourselves, it's just $$$. 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 If it's voluntary then there's no problem.
n1d0 Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Nations provide psychological stability. A purely free market society would be an atomising nightmare of psychosocial dislocation. Addiction rates to healthy, and increasingly unhealthy, behaviours would go through the roof. Nations bind people together--look at what happened when the North American aboriginals had their nations forcibly deleted, they became vulnerable to drug addiction in a way they were resistant to before. And I'm not bashing them, they're making strides in getting out of that condition, but I'm pointing out that when we lose a whole greater than ourselves, we collapse into spiritual poverty. "Free market" ain't a whole greater than ourselves, it's just $$$. I don't know what to say. The original inhabitants were forced... Their land was taken from them, that's no comparision... That's not a free market situation. And a free market only about $$$? Are you the FDR troll here or what?
Donnadogsoth Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 I don't know what to say. The original inhabitants were forced... Their land was taken from them, that's no comparision... That's not a free market situation. And a free market only about $$$? Are you the FDR troll here or what? Check out Bruce K. Alexander's Globalization of Addiction for a detailed description of psychosocial dislocation and how it relates to the free market society. We are a civilisation of addicts: food, sex, money, gambling, adrenaline, you name it. We are not balanced people anymore (as the bathroom scales testify) and it is largely due to free market society atomising us, taking away the binding elements of culture. We don't have a culture anymore, we just consume cultural products. http://www.brucekalexander.com/ 1
Tweak Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 Well, you ask why not? Might I start by stating some reasons FOR nationalism to start with. I think my message will become more clear if I state some reasons in support for nationalism to shed some light on the issues at hand. Explanations and pros regarding Nationalism: Nations as we have today are the results of western- european heads of, well, regions coming to terms over new regions. Nation states. Some say it was a treaty but it was actually a prolonged talks with over 200 delegates. Anyway it was a way to balance power since Europe had witnessed so much war. National interest, foreign policy etc.. The west I have to say have had some to do with how the rest of the world operates. On a nation state basis. "In the before times" kings, emperors, well rulers have operated on a "im one with God, the center of the universe" ond so on. Actually, France was perhaps one of the countries perfecting statecraftship to more or less what we have today. Actually it was more or less one man obviously a stratigigist who started the process and was a man of the church. The reason I personally find nationalism to be a beacon of light is because it creates a balance of power. Over the times, many wars have been fought coz of different people have been subjected to believes, laws and many other things that does not go hand and hand with their culture. The same problem exists today in states themselves tough it is not to the same extent. Just look at the people here in europe and the opposition to the EU. Not only does it create a balance of power but it creates a shorter hand if you will. What I mean by that is the fact that it is easier to make a change. However in my personal research I have found that nation states- (many are now just nations) are more or less governed by the same kind of people and in fact the very same people. Witch is not odd in my personal view. Who has the most in common? A billionaire in the UK and a farmer in the UK or a billionaire in the UK and the US? I think any rational person would know the answer to that question. Okay so now to the downside of nationalism: No matter how noble you might find for example Donald Trump he is in fact just like everybody else. What do I mean by that? He is the man who is trying to have other people subservient to him. To become the commander inb chief. Commanding you. The problem with this is that he is representing an area ei. the USA. In the US there are over 300 million people. Not everyone voted for him. The truth is that only the majority decides your destiny. So if 51 % thinks that you shouldnt eat potatoes you can no longer do that... () The cold hard truth of the matter is that if everybody had the "american spirit" they would not need a commander. Nor the laws to enforce the "values" of the american people. If everybody under this region (the US) had the same attitudes and so on there would be no reason for laws or a commander. Also when it comes to leaders and their parties they have a very dangerous element witch is the element of ambiguity. When ever you have ambiguity like for example Donald Trump states that he wants to make america great again. Ambiguity is something all leaders and their parties have and this makes a lot of room for radicalism. It is almost a kind of must. Coz if you as a leader lay out exactly what you want to do, not as many people would follow. When you have ambiguity as a leader you can rely on you charms and let the people in question fill in the gaps in order to feel like they belong to something (you the leader). 1
DaveR Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 Used to think some thought nationalism was bad while patriotism was good, with regard to the American empire. Then we got globalism. My school teachers always said 'patriotism is the love of your own countries, nationalism is the hatred of others' I suspect the definitions of love and hate however prove mysteriously fluid whether the country in question happens to be white majority or not.
Des Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 A lot of people do not seem to have a lot of problems with nationalism here, which surprises me. When we would have a free market society, borders become rather meaningless if I'm not mistaken? Don't get me wrong, we have compulsory voting (enforced) here and I voted for the Flemish Nationalists, because there isn't really a better alternative. How do you guys see nationalism work in a free market society? With nationalism, wouldn't there be a rise of organisation(s) which relies on force to put out its cultural values etc.? Is nationalism not like a government: forcefully expansive? Yes, I have read various definitions of nationalism, and that is why this concerns me. It is a very broad term. I predict there will be borders in a free society, as a practical way to deal with some dangerous people by firstly sending them into exile (rather than locking them up in cages). Exile should probably not be the only step in dealing with the dangerous few (because missiles, and because of possibility of rehabilitation). It is likely to be a necessary step, however, if dangerous people exist. Exile without any secure borders, is tricky. Also, it is a case of choosing between caging dangerous people, or exiling them (and spying on them), or living in danger, or killing them (and perhaps then also living in danger of being killed in revenge). Pick your poison.
Recommended Posts