UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
There is nothing wrong with it and any nation that wants to continue existing should be nationalist and promote nationalism.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism.
- Thread starter UltraChad
- Start date
There is nothing wrong with it and any nation that wants to continue existing should be nationalist and promote nationalism.
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
Yes...white people bad.
From the totally not woke, not lefty, not democrat.....super shocking.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 60,670
Racist
I'll reiterate - I'm a left leaning moderate.
But you don't believe in those, so please continue with your bullshit.
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
I agree, so why do you have such a problem with white people??
Woke tard "progressives" (fuckin' commies) aren't moderates.
Oh I do, I just don't think you're one of them.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 60,670
I didn't mention white people.
You did.
I agree. Progressives are not moderates.
I get that you generalize my positions.
MajorRewrite
Iffy
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2014
- Posts
- 7,178
Poor BotanyChad. He’s such a horribly persecuted victim. The world is out to get white sissies like him!
It’s no wonder he relies on government handouts to survive.
It’s no wonder he relies on government handouts to survive.
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
You mentioned exclusively white nations.
Your racism was clear.
I agree. Progressives are not moderates.
I get that you generalize my positions.
Look like a prog, quack like a prog, defend all things prog... folks are going to think you're a prog.
Generalizations are far more effective than ignoring what's mostly true.
But progressives love NAXALT.....they cling to those outliers and ignore the vast majority to fit their narrative and REALLY hate generalizations even when they are generally true.
So it's not at all shocking you do the same.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 60,670
Lol....I did not.
Yours was.
That almost sounds like coherent English.
To you, yes..... you've made that.clear.
You really like that term. I just talk specifically to people I'm having a conversation with and respond to their words.
I do not.So it's not at all shocking you do the same.
schism666
cold and ugly
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Posts
- 11,889
too fuckin' funny. dipwad digs his own hole and then covers himself in shit.
D
Deleted member 6873114
Guest
Nationalism is a tool used to give governments the military support they need. Historically nationalism has been a force that generates division among people and leads to war and death. Brainwashing any group into thinking they are special or better than other groups is going to breed long-term problems.
Philthy_Phil
I win !
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2021
- Posts
- 11,678
Send Korean anchor babies back!
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
You did.
That's because it is.
Only because you really like being based in it's premise.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 60,670
Lol
Of course it is.
Can't wait till you throw some capital E's in for effect.
In your head. Yes....where multiple things live in your reality that don't actually exist
UltraChad
Chaddius Maximus
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Posts
- 6,950
Well there isn't any meltdown to clown right now so. Probably not.
No in the words you post and your compulsive distain for generalizations. They really bother you.....
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 60,670
Aah....so there's qualifiers.for.your capital E's.
Neat.
I dislike them in discussion directly with someone.
You dislike that anyone would be outside of them.
Tomato
Tomato
The definition you cite shows the problem in your premise. If all nations adopted nationalism then they’d be an awful lot of conflict and fighting
There is a better definition than that, more politically relevant: Nationalism -- in its classic form, as it emerged in Europe in the early 19th Century -- is the idea that every nation -- defined as a group of people of shared language and culture (and, in some versions, blood kinship) -- should have its own nation-state, which should be both united and independent -- that is, the nation-state should encompass all territory inhabited by people of than nation, and it should not be controlled by any foreign or supranational power.
So stated, there does seem to be some common sense in the idea -- people of shared language and culture would appear to be optimally suited to form a functional political community.
But this was a dangerous idea when it was new. The political boundaries in Europe did not always follow national lines -- they had been shaped over the centuries by the fortunes of war, politics, and dynastic marriages.
In Germany, nationalism meant, "We're all Germans -- we should be more loyal to the idea of Germany as a whole than to the particular principalities we live in."
In Austria-Hungary, nationalism meant, "We're not German -- we should have our own independent Hungary/Rumania/Bohemia."
Either way, it potentially meant subversion of the existing order, revolution, war.
It also meant a lot of overlapping territorial claims between nations -- see irredentism.
Walter Lippman wrote after WWI, in his book Public Opinion:
"Now it happened in one nation that the war party which was in control of the foreign office, the high command, and most of the press, had claims on the territory of several of its neighbors. These claims were called the Greater Ruritania by the cultivated classes who regarded Kipling, Treitschke, and Maurice Barrès as one hundred percent Ruritanian. But the grandiose idea aroused no enthusiasm abroad. So holding this finest flower of the Ruritanian genius, as their poet laureate said, to their hearts, Ruritania's statesmen went forth to divide and conquer. They divided the claim into sectors. For each piece they invoked that stereotype which some one or more of their allies found it difficult to resist, because that ally had claims for which it hoped to find approval by the use of this same stereotype.
"The first sector happened to be a mountainous region inhabited by alien peasants. Ruritania demanded it to complete; her natural geographical frontier. If you fixed your attention long enough on the ineffable value of what is natural, those alien peasants just dissolved into fog, and only the slope of the mountains was visible. The next sector was inhabited by Ruritanians, and on the principle that no people ought to live under alien rule, they were reannexed. Then came a city of considerable commercial importance, not inhabited by Ruritanians. But until the Eighteenth Century it had been part of Ruritania, and on the principle of Historic Right it was annexed. Farther on there was a splendid mineral deposit owned by aliens and worked by aliens. On the principle of reparation for damage it was annexed. Beyond this there was a territory inhabited 97% by aliens, constituting the natural geographical frontier of another nation, never historically a part of Ruritania. But one of the provinces which had been federated into Ruritania had formerly traded in those markets, and the upper class culture was Ruritanian. On the principle of cultural superiority and the necessity of defending civilization, the lands were claimed. Finally, there was a port wholly disconnected from Ruritania geographically, ethnically, economically, historically, traditionally. It was demanded on the ground that it was needed for national defense.
"In the treaties that concluded the Great War you can multiply examples of this kind. Now I do not wish to imply that I think it was possible to resettle Europe consistently on any one of these principles. I am certain that it was not. The very use of these principles, so pretentious and so absolute, meant that the spirit of accommodation did not prevail and that, therefore, the substance of peace was not there. For the moment you start to discuss factories, mines, mountains, or even political authority, as perfect examples of some eternal principle or other, you are not arguing, you are fighting. That eternal principle censors out all the objections, isolates the issue from its background and its context, and sets going in you some strong emotion, appropriate enough to the principle, highly inappropriate to the docks, warehouses, and real estate. And having started in that mood you cannot stop. A real danger exists. To meet it you have to invoke more absolute principles in order to defend what is open to attack. Then you have to defend the defenses, erect buffers, and buffers for the buffers, until the whole affair is so scrambled that it seems less dangerous to fight than to keep on talking."
DeluxAuto
AntiSocial Extrovert
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Posts
- 20,064
Bot doesn't have the critical thinking skills to comprehend the simplicity of this comment.
The Ukraine war is a matter of conflicting nationalisms. To Zelenskyy, the Ukrainians are a nation, and as such are entitled to an independent state encompassing all historically Ukrainian territory. To Putin, Ukrainians only represent a regional variant of Russian culture and should be united with Russia. Both claims are impeccably consistent with nationalist principles.
When nationalism gets really dangerous is when it gets mystical -- when nationalists assume the existence of some kind of collective national spirit or Volksgeist. That leads to fascism. The individual is only a cell in the corporate body of the nation, owes all duties to the nation, and the nation has its own mind and will and direction, manifested in the Leader, who is a living avatar of the Volksgeist. The whole population must march in step behind the Leader. And marching there must be -- a nation so conceived does not stand still, it is going places.
George Orwell's 1945 essay "Notes on Nationalism" is very instructive here -- although Orwell emphasizes he is not using the word "nationalism" in the usual sense:
"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
"So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one's own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted."
"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
"So long as it is applied merely to the more notorious and identifiable nationalist movements in Germany, Japan, and other countries, all this is obvious enough. Confronted with a phenomenon like Nazism, which we can observe from the outside, nearly all of us would say much the same things about it. But here I must repeat what I said above, that I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one's own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted."
The radical blaze the trail and make a clearing in the wilderness.
The progressives build the cabins.
The liberals move in after the showers have been installed.
