Nationalism is NOT a Dirty Word

[n4hpg]

The trend in the popular media is to portray nationalists as the highest form of evil. George Soros has painted an interesting picture of a world without borders and the mainstream have picked it up.

 

I intend to pick multiculturalism apart. I usually enumerate my various points for reference and for clarity. I invite you to make reference to a given point in your response.

 

1. Nationalism exists for a reason. Different groups of people have developed unique and different cultures, languages, lifestyles, literature, architecture, music, etc.  The bordered nation-state is the incubator for the culture. It is necessary for the continued development of that culture. We respect and celebrate that which is unique to each nation by recognizing that they are that - a unique nation. If the nation-state is destroyed, so will be the culture. It is at a dead-end because it will lack the critical mass to continue.

 

2. The different national cultures are to be celebrated and respected. When I travel to other countries, I don't require them to start speaking English and acting like Americans (Clark Griswald I'm not!). In Germany, I speak German and enjoy my interactions with Germans. When in France, i speak French; in Slovakia, Slovak (badly, but because I make a sincere effort, I am universally loved. American polyglots are a rare breed.) But the point is this. Each nation is unique, special and to be celebrated because of this. When go somewhere different, you learn from others. This broadens the mind and enriches the human experience. The authentic German experience is NOT found at the Oktoberfest in Pearland TEXAS.

 

3. Different languages are necessary to broaden the scope of our psyche. My case in point is German. As a student of history, I really wanted to understand the entire scope of the Nazis. It is perhaps the greatest calamity in the modern era. Translations of the records are not sufficient to understand Nazism fully. So, I took it upon myself to learn German. With a good grasp of the language, I could then read the contemporaneous accounts in the native language and thus have a deeper understanding. If the German state is diluted and ultimately destroyed, who will speak the language? How much knowledge will we lose?

 

4. Nationalism is not hate. My wife left Slovakia to join that nation that is America. She didn't see Americans as hating her culture - she saw it as a different culture and one she wished to adopt. Such has been the story of immigrants to this country for most of its existence. People come to America to be Americans. Yes, they bring their own cultures and that adds to ours - it does not supplant it.

 

5. Multiculturalism creates isolation for individuals and groups. Say I were to move to Slovakia. If I insisted on remaining in the American culture, I would be isolated into a small group of other English-speaking people. This group's main gathering point is an Irish pub. Yes, from time to time, it is good to get back with your own people, but migration to another nation can be isolating without any assimilation. Say that all of my friends in Pearland Texas move to Slovakia, we would likely live in proximity and not fully integrate into their culture and language and thus be an isolated group.

 

Dear friends, if all 4 million people in the Houston area were to move to Slovakia, it would cease being Slovakia. In a generation's time, the language, customs and traditions would be destroyed. 

 

Multiculturalism is a race to the bottom for cultures. It is a homogenizing experience in the long run. Borders are the physical expression of in-group preferences. They are a cultural necessity.

 

[aviet]

Since I was young I was always against nationalism and like many my age was somehow convinced that the West were the bad guys and the third world were the victims. This has gradually shifted with evidence over the years, particularly the last three.

A combination of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum has made me shift from a Ron Paul-type who would like 2% government (if we could get rid of it, great). Its just too idealistic in the environment we now find ourselves. Nationalism is the only conceivable defense against globalism and global governance. For this reason I've decided things have to get muddy. As Stefan said in relation to what is happening, "We don't have as much time as I thought we had." in relation to his desire for a world of reason and at least limited government. It's not going to happen in our life times. If we are lucky we will avoid the biggest calamities to civilization in this century. For this reason, I broke my abstention from voting today to vote to leave the European Union and I will continue to vote at every opportunity for something I don't particularly agree with, but is markedly better from all the other options.

As for what you say about your wife. I completely agree. If I go to live in another country, it will be to join them. There will be aspects of myself that are not homogeneous, but my respect for their society, I believe, is essential. When I am in Britain, I will be a British nationalist, when I am in Serbia, I will be a Serbian nationalist, when I am in the US, I will be an American nationalist; because I have a respect for the culture in terms of what they have produced in the past, there relative superiority in the present and that they should be protected and enhanced, not eroded.

[dsayers]

1. Nationalism exists for a reason.

You might want to define your terms. Exists means comprised of matter or energy. Nationalism is a concept. Also, I don't even know what exists for a reason means.

 

The bordered nation-state is the incubator for the culture.

This assumes that culture should be preserved and that the State is the only way to do so. However, if your premise is that you have to point guns at people's heads to get them to do something, this is an indication that they do NOT want it. With the advent of the internet, borders are harder to assert than ever and to humanity's benefit.

 

2. The different national cultures are to be celebrated and respected.

Respect is earned. I celebrate rationalism and philosophy, which culture is an antithesis of.

 

3. Different languages are necessary to broaden the scope of our psyche.

This is one of the most absurd claims I've ever read. What does our psyche even mean? Can you define necessary? Can you explain how something that divides us could unify us? Or where the harm would be if everybody could understand one another?

 

If the German state is diluted and ultimately destroyed, who will speak the language? How much knowledge will we lose?

If preservation is your angle, how to you tackle the inconvenient truth that violence carried out in the name of the State has destroyed countless people, resources, cultures, items of "historical significance," etc? What knowledge could we ever truly lose? Say humanity managed to lose the atomic weight of Hydrogen right now. Would we not be able to reacquire it? I don't need to fully understand Nazism to know that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral and that everything else is aesthetic. That sentence alone is worth more than all others combined.

 

4. Nationalism is not hate.

I reject your claim that hate is a meaningful standard for judgement. I also challenge your claim by again pointing out the way it is the antithesis of rationalism and philosophy. Loving dirt that doesn't belong to you is irrational.

[Will Torbald]

dsayers - You're conflating nationalism with statism. There is no reason why "libertarian nationalism" can't have a voluntary society without coercion while at the same time protecting its cultural roots and territory with selective border control. If you attack culture, you attack the base where philosophy stands on. You can't begin to philosophize without a culture of intelect in the first place. Other cultures value strength, militarism, consumerism, materialism, etc - but where philosophy and science bloom is when the culture sees them as a value. It's a symbiosis, not an antithesis.

 

I do see a homogeneous cultural admixture as unpleasant. I don't want my traditions, my holidays, my ethnic foods, my accent, my history, my nation all to be washed out or absorbed into a melting pot. It's horrendous to think about. Even with neighboring countries in LA there is a feeling of "separate by related" around us. We know we are all similar to a degree, but it's the strong in group preference for the tribe that allows us to be different nations. Maybe in America the federal government has distorted the idea of a small nation with its own identity to the point where states are interchangeable sometimes, I don't know for sure, but everywhere else in the world each country is its own beast. It's not an irrational love of dirt, but a rational recognition of the bonds between the people on that dirt.

[dsayers]

dsayers - You're conflating nationalism with statism. There is no reason why "libertarian nationalism" can't have a voluntary society without coercion while at the same time protecting its cultural roots and territory with selective border control. If you attack culture, you attack the base where philosophy stands on. You can't begin to philosophize without a culture of intelect in the first place. Other cultures value strength, militarism, consumerism, materialism, etc - but where philosophy and science bloom is when the culture sees them as a value. It's a symbiosis, not an antithesis.

This is a very interesting challenge. Thank you for the feedback. My initial reaction is that while your initial claim might well be valid, I would still argue that culture is in fact the antithesis of philosophy. Perhaps we should define culture. For example, we live in a culture where the narrative is that you have to stick by family. This can be an incredibly destructive prescription. If you and I ACCEPT that 2+2=4, would we call ourselves a culture of mathematical rationalism? Doesn't seem like something people would do.

 

Which serves as a preamble for the pushback I experience with regards to your initial claim. It is true that I have conflated nationalism with statism. Because historically, they have been connected. Does this mean we can have a nation without coercion? I'm not so sure. You can scan my post history to see the ways in which I find things like homeowner's association as an unsustainable if not completely unnecessary proposition. It's something to think about. Maybe you could help by fleshing it out a bit more. Like if we lived in a world full of soda drinkers and you and I understood that we need to hydrate such as with water, is this grounds for claiming a geographical alliance? It doesn't seem to follow.

 

Just as I have conflated nationalism with statism because that's the way it's always been, perhaps you're anticipating banding together for ideology's sake at a time when such things wouldn't be necessary. I can picture gathering with folks because we all like to go bowling. I don't see the value in having a meet and greet because we agree that achieving our goals non-violently. Of course, I am supposing a time when such things are understood and the only reason to celebrate it is because human history had millenia or more to the contrary. I just don't see it. Doesn't mean I'm right. But thus far, a nation has been the border of violent claim.

 

Though I still submit that loving dirt that doesn't belong to you is irrational. Is this not what nationalism is mechanically?

[Des]

Maybe you could help by fleshing it out a bit more. Like if we lived in a world full of soda drinkers and you and I understood that we need to hydrate such as with water, is this grounds for claiming a geographical alliance? It doesn't seem to follow.

I'd like a geographical alliance with people who do not kill unborn humans unless it is to save the life of the mother, and who also do not go over their border to interfere with people who kill unborn humans for less important reasons. This are two elements of my preference in neighbours. Even if we disregard all my less important preferences, I expect there will be some borders in a free society, just for the permutations of those two preferences.

 

Oh, and hi again. I know we converse a lot, I hope it is still a good conversation for you. Is it?

[dsayers]

A combination of Donald Trump and the Brexit referendum has made me shift from a Ron Paul-type who would like 2% government (if we could get rid of it, great). Its just too idealistic in the environment we now find ourselves. Nationalism is the only conceivable defense against globalism and global governance. For this reason I've decided things have to get muddy.

2% used to be the low end of incidence of psychopathy in humans. So let's imagine you're talking about rape. It's as if you said that you used to support people not being taught to aggress against one another. But that's too idealistic, so you would support rape if you thought it held off a murder culture.

 

The things is, it's not up to you. You don't have the right to consent on behalf of others. Whether the UK is in the EU or not, they're still going to claim ownership over you. Participating in their game is acknowledgement that they do in fact own you. You are not helping on either count here.

 

I'd like a geographical alliance with people who do not kill unborn humans unless it is to save the life of the mother, and who also do not go over their border to interfere with people who kill unborn humans for less important reasons.

"Unborn humans" is poisoning the well. I'm not sure this even makes sense. How often is anybody presented with such a choice? Assuming we're talking about a free society, how often would bad decisions that lead to unwanted pregnancy actually come up? And is this geographical alliance comparable to a nation?

[aviet]

The things is, it's not up to you. You don't have the right to consent on behalf of others. Whether the UK is in the EU or not, they're still going to claim ownership over you. Participating in their game is acknowledgement that they do in fact own you. You are not helping on either count here.

I agree with your arguments, but if I can get myself a 10% better deal with less use of force, I am going to take it. I believe even Stefan said he would have voted for Brexit, if he were able.

 

One way I heard someone here put it in relation to voting for Donald Trump:

 

"I'm voting for Trump out of self-defense. There is not a conflict of principles." - jpahmad

 

I would say the same for Brexit.

[dsayers]

I can get myself a 10% better deal with less use of force

You can't.

 

I believe even Stefan said he would have voted for Brexit, if he were able.

Not an argument.

 

One way I heard someone here put it in relation to voting for Donald Trump:

 

"I'm voting for Trump out of self-defense. There is not a conflict of principles." - jpahmad

Which I have successfully refuted both here and there.

You can do whatever you like. Just skip the nobility narrative and be honest that you're anxious and you'd rather pretend to do something than to be free within your own head.

[Mister Mister]

Brexit is a small rare win for liberty.  It doesn't mean we still can't argue for a stateless society from a pure principled position, but if all of Europe erupts in racial civil war, your philosophical nitpicking won't do good for anyone.

[DCLugi]

You can do whatever you like. Just skip the nobility narrative and be honest that you're anxious and you'd rather pretend to do something than to be free within your own head.

Both North Korea and the US are examples of initiating force to organize society. Both are immoral. Which one is the better choice for spreading the message of consistent principles?

[dsayers]

Both North Korea and the US are examples of initiating force to organize society. Both are immoral. Which one is the better choice for spreading the message of consistent principles?

False dichotomy. Also, "initiating the use of force to organize" is a self-detonating claim.

 

your philosophical nitpicking won't do good for anyone.

I'm not sure who you're speaking to. However, if accuracy is of no value, why have you chosen the specific words that you have? We think how we speak and DCLugi's post is a fantastic example of how subscribing to false narratives can artificially limit our thoughts. That's not good.

 

Also, I don't know what Brexit is. I will make an effort to become familiarized. In the meantime, can you explain how it's a win for liberty? Did a large sum of people reject government as righteous? Did a world power collapse without it's former slaves begging for a new master to be propped up in its place?

[DCLugi]

False dichotomy. Also, "initiating the use of force to organize" is a self-detonating claim.

 

I'm not sure who you're speaking to. However, if accuracy is of no value, why have you chosen the specific words that you have? We think how we speak and DCLugi's post is a fantastic example of how subscribing to false narratives can artificially limit our thoughts. That's not good.

 

Also, I don't know what Brexit is. I will make an effort to become familiarized. In the meantime, can you explain how it's a win for liberty? Did a large sum of people reject government as righteous? Did a world power collapse without it's former slaves begging for a new master to be propped up in its place?

Indeed I should have said, "under the guise of organizing". May I ask why you post on this forum?

[WasatchMan]

Nationalism is a crap shoot, not philosophy. You could roll 7 or 11 and find yourself raking in western civilization with the principles set down by thinking men with logic and reason as their guiding light or you could roll snake eyes and get a Muslim theocracy with superstition and dogma to smight out the mind. Either way the methodology is wrong and therefore the principle is invalid.

[Des]

"Unborn humans" is poisoning the well. I'm not sure this even makes sense. How often is anybody presented with such a choice? Assuming we're talking about a free society, how often would bad decisions that lead to unwanted pregnancy actually come up? And is this geographical alliance comparable to a nation?

Unborn humans is a term that is not incorrect. Unborn child would be incorrect. I think if I wanted subconsciously to unfairly influence my readers, I might have typed unborn children (I'm not saying this to block off reflection on your feedback, I am chewing on your response, and will see what I find). Sure, I also hope for a future where people plan well, and create new humans in a planned way. I also want to recognise that when someone chooses to disregard my hopes and wishes, that's fine, and if I respond (with a bunch of neighbours) by creating a border and keeping those people away from where we care about this particular preference, that's also fine (isn't it?).

 

I'm not sure if a set of preferences creates a nation, if people with a preference for being really scantily clad on hot days, whether outdoors or in shopping malls, or at work, congregate in a geographic region: does that make them a nation? Will people with that preference separate into those who also have a preference for having some chemically-induced altered state, and those who don't?

 

I can imagine travelling to get-high-land, or get-drunk-land, as a visitor, and going home at some time, to where my grandchildren don't have to observe or interact with high or drunk people.

 

Nationalism? well, not for me in this social order, where I have more in common with a USA citizen who wants to end taxation than with a South African citizen who wants to extract taxation. No, I can't love dirt. I can (and do) love people, and I can have a special fondness for people who would move with me to somewhere we can all achieve our preferences without annoying those who have incompatible preferences.

[neeeel]

 

 

3. Different languages are necessary to broaden the scope of our psyche.

This is one of the most absurd claims I've ever read. What does our psyche even mean? Can you define necessary? Can you explain how something that divides us could unify us? Or where the harm would be if everybody could understand one another?

 

 

I would think has some truth ( although I agree with you about the use of psyche) , There is some evidence that the language you speak affects the way you think. If you can think in different ways, this has broadened your scope. Its not clear how much of an effect language has though

[dsayers]

if I respond (with a bunch of neighbours) by creating a border and keeping those people away from where we care about this particular preference, that's also fine (isn't it?).

You can build a fence around your property. Let's suppose any number of your neighbors does the same. Between you, the roads between are owned by you and you construct gates and hire guards for those gates, etc. Is this comparable to a nation? I don't think so.

 

What if instead of all the extra effort and resources, you lot simply didn't trade with people who thought it was okay to abort fetuses (the proper term, BTW)? Would people live in a place where they couldn't trade with anybody for a 5 mile radius? Or just not rent/sell land to such people?

 

How realistic is this? Imagine 64 of you chose to do what you propose in an 8x8 grid. What if one of the center squares (to use your example) was into scantily clad? And another was into getting high? There are so many things people can have preferences for that the idea that identically minded will find each other, in such numbers, with your shared conviction of actively repelling those who disagree doesn't seem realistic. People get polarized over such things today because the State has a vested interest in keeping the slaves in-fighting to prevent them all from realizing they have a common enemy.

 

There is some evidence that the language you speak affects the way you think. If you can think in different ways, this has broadened your scope. Its not clear how much of an effect language has though

Suppose that is true. Does knowing two languages instead of one count as thinking in different ways? Are you familiar with visualization? The brain can only juggle so many pieces of information in the moment. By writing things down or otherwise providing a visual representation, you reduce the load on your brain in the moment, allowing you to solve more complex tasks with greater amounts of information. Are you familiar with the Google effect? Once cell phones came around, people stopped remember as many phone numbers because they don't have to. This frees the mind and its memory to be able to be used for other things. I can't help but think that knowing one language instead of two would have a similar effect.

 

Don't forget that the assertion was that multiple languages are NECESSARY. It's kind of like when somebody claims "all" and you find one example of an instance where such a claim is untrue, thus the entire claim is untrue. Similarly, I think that if you can find an example of people surviving without multiple languages, the claim of necessary is revealed as an overstatement.

[Mister Mister]

Also, I don't know what Brexit is. I will make an effort to become familiarized. In the meantime, can you explain how it's a win for liberty? Did a large sum of people reject government as righteous? Did a world power collapse without it's former slaves begging for a new master to be propped up in its place?

Let me make a reductio ad absurdum to see if I can make the point better.  If you had a choice between being ruled by a local government - city or county, or by a global government, whose decisions you had little/no control over, would you have any kind of preference as a libertarian?  Is it all the same, just because in the local scenario, you are still ruled by a government?

 

  A philosophical revolution is not the only kind of win for liberty.  Wouldn't you consider privatization of healthcare or education, or legalization of drugs, or America downsizing it's Empire, a win for liberty?

[dsayers]

A philosophical revolution is not the only kind of win for liberty.  Wouldn't you consider privatization of healthcare or education, or legalization of drugs, or America downsizing it's Empire, a win for liberty?

If you held up a sign that said 2+2=? and a monkey threw a dart and hit the number 4, no, I would not consider that a win for science. Would you? If the conclusion is unprincipled and/or the methodology was flawed, having an outcome you like is no more a win than today being sunny as opposed to raining.

 

A group of people choosing which hood ornament is on the car that runs them over instead of choosing to not be run over and not run their neighbors and unborn children over is not a win for liberty. This is true in and of itself. When compared to the avalanche of losses for liberty allowed for and chosen by those same people, how could anybody even suggest there's an appreciable difference?

[Mister Mister]

Sorry, but that's incredibly foolish.  Not all States are the same.  If you had the choice between living under the government of Switzerland, or of North Korea, or Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia, does that really make no difference to you?

[thecurrentyear]

I would think has some truth ( although I agree with you about the use of psyche) , There is some evidence that the language you speak affects the way you think. If you can think in different ways, this has broadened your scope. Its not clear how much of an effect language has though

 

I think you're speaking in terms of an individual benefitting from the knowledge of more than one language. But it seems the assertion was in terms of multiple languages around the world benefitting all humans as a whole. I'm not inserting an opinion here, but thought there should at least be pointed out you're not talking about the same thing.

[thecurrentyear]

"unborn children "

 

Hahaha. I see what you did there.

[Will Torbald]

Sorry, but that's incredibly foolish.  Not all States are the same.  If you had the choice between living under the government of Switzerland, or of North Korea, or Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia, does that really make no difference to you?

 

I want to echo this sentiment. Fewer government layers are preferable to total global control in the same way a mistake in calculation by a factor of 2 is preferable to one by a factor of 200. I do however believe that this paralyzing principled all-or-nothing approach is actually benefitial to the powers of the status quo since they can deter any movement towards liberty by convincing otherwise capable people of doing nothing because they see everything in totalitarian terms. Slightly more government doesn't affect them, since it's still government, so they can raise the temperature of the pot until everything is boiling because the sitting frog won't jump because it's not completely off.

[dsayers]

Sorry, but that's incredibly foolish.

I found the claim that it was a win for liberty to be foolish. Instead of adjectives, I provided logic, reason, or evidence. Which you have not addressed, nor responded in kind.

 

If you had the choice between living under the government of Switzerland, or of North Korea, or Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia

False dichotomy. Which I've already addressed (see hood ornament above). Also false premise in your implication that there's a difference between sub-EU UK and UK; Both are devoid of liberty as evidenced by the presence of any coercion of perceived legitimacy.

 

does that really make no difference to you?

Personalization. That's not what we were talking about and the answer would make no difference. You said it was a win for liberty and I disagreed with you and provided very good reasons why.

 

Instead of assuming I'm wrong because I disagree with you, why not show me how I'm foolish and adress what was said?

 

 

Fewer government layers are preferable

Of course. But that's not what's being discussed.

 

I do however believe that this paralyzing principled all-or-nothing approach is actually benefitial to the powers of the status quo since they can deter any movement towards liberty by convincing otherwise capable people of doing nothing

You poison the well with your claim of "doing nothing" and "paralyzing." Accepting that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories isn't doing nothing; It's doing the one thing that must be done to enjoy freedom in one's own life. Also, I have argued that the "step in the right direction" fallacy is beneficial to the powers that be because it gives people the illusion of progress while they remain slaves in their own mind (the antithesis of progress). link Just because people wouldn't want to throw you in a sub-EU UK cage for disagreeing with them doesn't mean that they wouldn't throw you in a UK cage.

 

I suspect here's a reason why you guys aren't tackling this position head on.

[DCLugi]

I found the claim that it was a win for liberty to be foolish. Instead of adjectives, I provided logic, reason, or evidence. Which you have not addressed, nor responded in kind.

 

False dichotomy. Which I've already addressed (see hood ornament above). Also false premise in your implication that there's a difference between sub-EU UK and UK; Both are devoid of liberty as evidenced by the presence of any coercion of perceived legitimacy.

 

Personalization. That's not what we were talking about and the answer would make no difference. You said it was a win for liberty and I disagreed with you and provided very good reasons why.

 

Instead of assuming I'm wrong because I disagree with you, why not show me how I'm foolish and adress what was said?

 

 

Of course. But that's not what's being discussed.

 

You poison the well with your claim of "doing nothing" and "paralyzing." Accepting that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories isn't doing nothing; It's doing the one thing that must be done to enjoy freedom in one's own life. Also, I have argued that the "step in the right direction" fallacy is beneficial to the powers that be because it gives people the illusion of progress while they remain slaves in their own mind (the antithesis of progress). link Just because people wouldn't want to throw you in a sub-EU UK cage for disagreeing with them doesn't mean that they wouldn't throw you in a UK cage.

 

I suspect here's a reason why you guys aren't tackling this position head on.

I'm still not clear why you're posting on this board as opposed to an Adele fan forum.

[n4hpg]

I've read a number of comments and have some responses:

 

1. Statism is often conflated with the concept of an effective state that represents the people. We cannot have a "borderless society" AND keep the values of our tribe. We Americans banded together to forge a constitution of limited government for the purposes of protecting people and property. As de Toqueville said, we would decline if we ever let it get out of our control. The raison d'etre for the state according to that constitution is the end. Statism is an end towards itself.

 

The Libertarian inside of me wants no part of any government. The rest of me says that without SOME government, others will come and kill me and take my stuff and that I need our national tribe to help defend me as my own arms are insufficient. (And that is saying a LOT as I'm well armed and well trained in the use of arms.)

 

2. Psyche. I stand by that word. Get back to me after you've mastered your third language. The night that I wrote the original post, I awoke at 2AM having had a nightmare in German. The English side of my brain cannot even describe what happened in the dream. Step 2, in 1 word or less, translate "Schadenfreude" into English - "Skodaradost" for you Slavic speakers.

[dsayers]

The rest of me says that without SOME government, others will come and kill me and take my stuff

Better your stuff be taken and your life be threatened by "your team"?!

 

2. Psyche. I stand by that word. Get back to me after you've mastered your third language.

But why? Without any reason provided, you're just saying that you believe what you believe because you want to believe it. Which is fine. However, you claim was objective and absolute, so whimsy isn't sufficient.

 

in 1 word or less

Why? What would that prove? Who formed the standard of one word? Did you know that Google is a verb? It didn't used to be. What language is that word? Seems universal. If "Schadenfreude" is so useful and language X doesn't have an equivalent, then you can just use it and define it. You don't need an entire other language to do so. And this still does nothing to substantiate your initial claim.

 

Deja vu is French yet just about everybody who speaks English knows what it is because English simply assimilated it. This is classic supply and demand. You are aware that languages are "alive" and evolve, right? That's why there's such a thing as dialects and slang. The PURPOSE of language is what matters. Getting an idea from my consciousness to yours. If I succeed, it matters little HOW I did so.

[n4hpg]

Your argument would indicate that my own team would invariably be an enemy and therefore I cannot be part of a team. Indeed, carried further it would indicate that all teams are destructive of their members.

 

There is a threat to western civilization and that is Islam. The goals of the religion are to have every person on the planet accept their teachings or be killed. In this way, the goal is to come to the places where Islam is not in power and to kill the infidels and take their stuff. And they do want our stuff. They use our technology, but they despise our culture. So, when I say that I need other team members to join with me in mutual defense, this is not some idle thought, but based upon the facts. History will bear me out.

 

Yes, my comments about language and psyche were whimsical. I realized that it is almost absurd to try to convince someone who hasn't mastered at least 1 other language of its truth. The use of Shadenfreude and Skodaradost were put as illustrations. YES, we can translate them, but the concepts are deeper than one would get from translation and this is my point. Each language has different construction and different methods for conveying deep meaning.

 

I would reply to your assertion that we can simply pop things into Google Translate to find the truth as far more absurd than you have accused me.

[dsayers]

Your argument would indicate that my own team would invariably be an enemy and therefore I cannot be part of a team. Indeed, carried further it would indicate that all teams are destructive of their members.

I indicated nothing. YOU said government.

 

There is a threat to western civilization and that is Islam. The goals of the religion are to have every person on the planet accept their teachings or be killed. In this way, the goal is to come to the places where Islam is not in power and to kill the infidels and take their stuff. And they do want our stuff. They use our technology, but they despise our culture.

Suppose this is true. Near as I can tell, governments are FORCING people to take these people in.

 

I realized that it is almost absurd to try to convince someone who hasn't mastered at least 1 other language of its truth.

I've already pointed out visualization. I now also call upon the way complexity comparatively leads to inefficiency. All you've offered is "you had to be there." Sorry, but I do not find this to be persuasive. In fact, I find it to be an indication that either what you've put forth is not true or that you don't have enough grasp on it yourself to make such an extraordinary claim.

 

I would reply to your assertion that we can simply pop things into Google Translate

This is the first reference to Google Translate. So strawman. What's weird is that you claim to have the expertise that could serve as an intermediary while simultaneously trying to claim that intermediaries would be insufficient.