The national (ethnic) state vs. the artificial geographic state

[renard_ruse]

The highest achievement of humanity was the evolution of the ethnic based national state in the 18th and 19th century. That is to say states based on a majority of their population sharing a common ancestry, general physical appearance, culture, language, values and broad way of life.

It took millenia for this beautiful ideal to develop from the vast empires and patchworks of statelets of the past. The bonds that citizens developed in the national state gave them a sense of common purpose and meaning in their lives, and a drive to make themselves the best they could be so that their country, their extended family in fact, could be the greatest and most wonderful place it could be. Many of the greatest inventions and cultural achievements have been the product of national (ethnic based) states over the past two or three hundred years.

Today, for a variety of reasons, but not least of which is an organized worldwide ideologically motivated effort, the national state is deliberately being destroyed. In places like the US, its already pretty much gone. In Europe, its most likely beyond the point of return. Even in some of its last remaining strongholds in Asia, immigration and multiculturism is gradually seeping in and destroying the ethnic cohesion of these once nice places.

Yet, what have they been replaced with, somthing better perhaps? Far from it.

The geographic based "line in the sand" state is based on nothing, with a gaggle of disparate groups with nothing in common and often outright hostility to each other. Big souless, meaningless governments, run by a corrupt criminal class who's only concern is maintaining power and milking as much of the wealth from the "diversity" they rule over have "made things better"? Hardly. Why on earth would anyone care about being the "best he/she could be" in such a three ring circus masquerading as a country? Sure, some people will do their best just because they want to succeed as individuals or provide for their families, but most, the masses of morons, won't bother. Most don't even want to talk to their neighbors, and who can blame them. When you can't even speak the same national language as the people next door, then why not just retreat into your beer and your video games and lock the double deadbolt on the front door.

The death of the ethnic based national state is a human tragedy, and it hasn't happened by accident.

 

[Sean Renaud]

First it's a disgusting idea and second it's entirely impossible since all nations are artificial geographic states. Of course your right, it has been stamped out intentionally. Only scum would wish it to continue.

 

[renard_ruse]

Probably one of the most profound threads ever on the GB, and nobody wants to comment?

I guess everyone agrees with the OP and there's nothing more to say.

 

[renard_ruse]

What are countries, and why do they exist?

What should be the basis for countries and why?

Why should one be willing to give one's life for a country that is based on little more than an arbitrary line on the ground? Why should one even be expected to pay taxes to such a country for that matter? Do we even need such arbitrary countries at all?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The process is called creeping feudalism.

Its human nature to wanna be king of the world, and plenty of folks are obsessed with the idea. Its the foundation of Liberalism, to control everyone everywhere. Liberals and lords hate boundaries when theyre in an expansive mood.

The cure for it is to hang a few princes as the need arises.

 

[renard_ruse]

The process is called creeping feudalism...

I'm kind of a neo-feudalist myself. At least social roles were clearly defined and everyone was expected to pull his or her weight. The peasants worked, but didn't have to defend the manor, while the lords administered it and fought to defend the peasants from attack. They system worked well for many centuries, unlike our disfunctional "everyone should go to college and work in an office" society today. There were always enough jobs under feudalism.

 

[Que]

Naw, even feudalism wouldn't provide full employment now that the ATM has been invented.

Most great civilizations were profoundly xenophobic. Birds of a feather is human nature, people are more likely to spontaneously group together and find common cause with others who's general appearance is similar... combine that with cultural ties, tradition and ideas of heritage and you have a cohesive unit that will repel outside incursion.

Do you remember in school so that people didn't offend anyone by someone being picked last in a sport you would count off 1212121212.

One would be shirts; two would be skins?

Do you remember any of your teammates that were selected in that manner? Do you remember any of the great plays were made or what your record was for that intramural season?

 

[Sean Renaud]

What are countries, and why do they exist?

What should be the basis for countries and why?

Why should one be willing to give one's life for a country that is based on little more than an arbitrary line on the ground? Why should one even be expected to pay taxes to such a country for that matter? Do we even need such arbitrary countries at all?

Countries exist for the same reason as tribes. Humans are social animals and we benefit from each other. (However as usual you are focusing on stupid shit. Your original point was that people should be racists because it makes more sense than staying on yourside of the river. Except it doesn't.)

It doesn't REALLY matter what you base a country on but if I had to choose it would be based on Geography. It's much easier to keep track of amongst other things and that's also how resources are divided.

Yes, we need countries. Until everybody like you is dead and there is no need to divide people we might as well do it along lines that make some kind of sense.