Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=126027 Printed Date: December 11 2024 at 16:33 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Has Nationalism become a bad word?Posted By: SteveG
Subject: Has Nationalism become a bad word?
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 06:51
Often associated with the right wing political stance that is against globalism, has nationalism become a bad word to the left? What about pride in one's own country and putting it before the concerns of other nations?
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Replies: Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:16
It depends on what you mean but i general the term nationalist is not something you entitle yoursself; it would no look good in a jobb resume, but where on drives the line between patriotisme, nationalisme and national soisialisme/nazisme is emotionaly difficult to do. It is all about where the emphesize is; if its culturally motivate then it's ok (according to Walter Benjamin) if it's used politicly motivated; than it becomes a negative (accoording to Walter Benjamin)
-------------
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:29
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:31
Icarium wrote:
It depends on what you mean but i general the term nationalist is not something you entitle yoursself; it would no look good in a jobb resume, but where on drives the line between patriotisme, nationalisme and national soisialisme/nazisme is emotionaly difficult to do. It is all about where the emphesize is; if its culturally motivate then it's ok (accordikg to Walter Benjamin) if it's used politicly motivated; than it becomes a negative (accoording to Walter Benjamin)
A very good answer. I suppose many people align it into the old socialist/Nazi meaning when it's meant as an expression of patriotism. And I need to check out Walter Benjamin.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:34
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:36
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
I'm neither a football fan, effectively.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:38
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
I'm neither a football fan, effectively.
That's commendable Luca, but it doesn't answer my question. Is it not the same thing?
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:39
I think the widespread disavowal of nationalism in Europe was a reaction to the horrors of WW2 (as was the emergence of the rather bleak world view of Existentialism) You could also argue that the fear of a recurrence of something as abhorrent as the Nazi regime was one of the pivotal driving forces behind the formation of the European Union. I've always been deeply suspicious of entreaties to national identity and pride: How much talent or virtue does it take to be born within a country's borders? People often ask me if I'm proud to be Scottish. I always answer that I've never had to fight for my country, I've never invented or created anything for the betterment of my fellow creatures and I've never represented my nation in a sporting capacity so such sentiments strike me as basking in the reflected glory of my forebears. Identity politics is one of the banes of our age and similar to how we misappropriate the idea of culture, just becomes yet another self serving ploy for those who are either unable or unwilling to articulate their own ideas.
-------------
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:42
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
I'm neither a football fan, effectively.
That's commendable Luca, but it doesn't answer my question. Is it not the same thing?
Yes, it's the same thing. The left is not for competitive sports.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:43
ExittheLemming wrote:
How much talent or virtue does it take to be born within a country's borders? People often ask me if I'm proud to be Scottish? I always answer that I've never had to fight for my country, I've never invented or created anything for the betterment of my fellow creatures and I've never represented my nation in a sporting capacity so such sentiments strike me as basking in the reflected glory of our forebears.
Some good arguments worth considering.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:46
Vompatti wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
I'm neither a football fan, effectively.
That's commendable Luca, but it doesn't answer my question. Is it not the same thing?
Yes, it's the same thing. The left is not for competitive sports.
I know many lefties who are Ranger's fans and love it when Canadian teams get beaten. Perhaps that's just a North American thing.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 07:57
SteveG wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
I'm neither a football fan, effectively.
That's commendable Luca, but it doesn't answer my question. Is it not the same thing?
Yes, it's the same thing. The left is not for competitive sports.
I know many lefties who are Ranger's fans and love it when Canadian teams get beaten. Perhaps that's just a North American thing.
Let's put it in this way: there's a certain difference between a football supporter and a hooligan, so there's a difference between one proud of his nation and a fascist.
Anyway, I like discussing politics in a different kind of social, so I'll just tell you why I'm (no longer) a football fan:
Many years ago, the Italian football federation, after realizing that all the Serie A teams have bribed about the naturalization of foreign players, decided to change the rules on the fly, otherwise the whole championship would have been relegated.
Later, a colleague told me who were the designed winners of Championship, cup and Cupwinners cup. And it happened.
Finally, another guy gave me the full results of the last championship day imcluding the sequence of the goals match by match.
Having realized that soccer is as credible as wrestling, I have decided to follow other sports, like i.e. Alpine Ski (as mentioned in my last review currently on the home page).
About politics, I'm proudly anarchist and Mikhail Bakunin is my favorite phylosopher. Try reading some of his books.
No races, no nations.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:00
SteveG wrote:
Often associated with the right wing political stance that is against globalism, has nationalism become a bad word to the left? What about pride in one's own country and putting it before the concerns of other nations?
Is that necessarily a bad thing?
Nationalism has always been bad, not just for left wingers. Nationalism means often expansionism and annexations, all the while excluding those who don't belong. It is a form of narrow parochialism or isolationism.
I much prefer a certain form of patriotism than nationalism.
That's why the nationalist Brexit was bad: excluding those that are not insulary people.
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:00
Just one thing more: havign worked some years in the NW of UK, I still check what Chester does, but this year the National League North has been canceled because of the pandemic.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:01
octopus-4 wrote:
Let's put it in this way: there's a certain difference between a football supporter and a hooligan, so there's a difference between one proud of his nation and a fascist.
Worthy of being included on anyone's signature. Kudos.
-------------
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:02
Sean Trane wrote:
Nationalism has always been bad, not just for left wingers. Nationalism means often expansionism and annexations, all the while excluding those who don't belong. It is a form of narrow parochialism or isolationism.
Exactly what I was meaning.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:03
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
I'm neither a football fan, effectively.
That's commendable Luca, but it doesn't answer my question. Is it not the same thing?
Yes, it's the same thing. The left is not for competitive sports.
I know many lefties who are Ranger's fans and love it when Canadian teams get beaten. Perhaps that's just a North American thing.
Let's put it in this way: there's a certain difference between a football supporter and a hooligan, so there's a difference between one proud of his nation and a fascist.
Anyway, I like discussing politics in a different kind of social, so I'll just tell you why I'm (no longer) a football fan:
Many years ago, the Italian football federation, after realizing that all the Serie A teams have bribed about the naturalization of foreign players, decided to change the rules on the fly, otherwise the whole championship would have been relegated.
Later, a colleague told me who were the designed winners of Championship, cup and Cupwinners cup. And it happened.
Finally, another guy gave me the full results of the last championship day imcluding the sequence of the goals match by match.
Having realized that soccer is as credible as wrestling, I have decided to follow other sports, like i.e. Alpine Ski (as mentioned in my last review currently on the home page).
About politics, I'm proudly anarchist and Mikhail Bakunin is my favorite phylosopher. Try reading some of his books.
No races, no nations.
Ok, I'll give Bakunin a try but he might be too extreme for a brain washed Anerican like me.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:05
In the UK, English nationalism is usually sensationalised to a bunch of right wing nutcases, completely forgetting the vast silent majority who are proud of their country, but feel no need whatsoever to denigrate, or fight with, other nations.
In Scotland and Wales, the nationalists are left of centre metropolitan liberals, or at least the leadership of SNP and Plaid Cymru are.
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:08
ExittheLemming wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
Let's put it in this way: there's a certain difference between a football supporter and a hooligan, so there's a difference between one proud of his nation and a fascist.
Worthy of being included on anyone's signature. Kudos.
I've been to some big soccer games in the UK and in some instances the fans were not very different from hooligans.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:17
Nationalism has taken on a bad reputation recently mostly fuelled by the utopist/anarchist crowd, who look to alter/erase history (not a good thing) to suit some agenda of absolute equality and purity. In fact, there are 2 kinds of Nationalism . First, you have offensive militaristic warrior societies who want to expand their power (such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia), all have been historically condemned and rightly so.
Then you have the defensive nationalism whereby protecting your home /homeland from outside aggression is a duty (if an intruder tried to enter your home and threaten your family , would you fight back or just hope that they are "terrestrial"?) . Would you protect your home only and not your homeland ? This second group of nationalists are made famous by names such as Gandhi, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Levesque, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or even Tito and Castro (2 authoritarian dictators though). Making it simple when its all quite complex is a slippery slope.
I am reminded of the motto of a Swiss school I attended in the 70s: "Be proud of hour heritage but respect those of others ". That is simple....
------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
Posted By: Spaciousmind
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:20
Best to avoid words ending with "ism" in general as most are negative to living species beyond that small circle the particular word supports.
Rally the troops.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:29
tszirmay wrote:
Nationalism has taken on a bad reputation recently mostly fuelled by the utopist/anarchist crowd, who look to alter/erase history (not a good thing) to suit some agenda of absolute equality and purity. In fact, there are 2 kinds of Nationalism . First, you have offensive militaristic warrior societies who want to expand their power (such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia), all have been historically condemned and rightly so.
Then you have the defensive nationalism whereby protecting your home /homeland from outside aggression is a duty (if an intruder tried to enter your home and threaten your family , would you fight back or just hope that they are "terrestrial"?) . Would you protect your home only and not your homeland ? This second group of nationalists are made famous by names such as Gandhi, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Levesque, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or even Tito and Castro (2 authoritarian dictators though). Making it simple when its all quite complex is a slippery slope.
I am reminded of the motto of a Swiss school I attended in the 70s: "Be proud of hour heritage but respect those of others ". That is simple....
Yes, it's impossible to say that Gandhi and Mandela are not nationists, at least it your definition of the term.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:30
Spaciousmind wrote:
Best to avoid words ending with "ism" in general as most are negative to living species beyond that small circle the particular word supports.
Rally the troops.
Optimism might get a pass though
-------------
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:34
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:36
tszirmay wrote:
Nationalism has taken on a bad reputation recently mostly fuelled by the utopist/anarchist crowd, who look to alter/erase history (not a good thing) to suit some agenda of absolute equality and purity. In fact, there are 2 kinds of Nationalism . First, you have offensive militaristic warrior societies who want to expand their power (such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia), all have been historically condemned and rightly so.
Then you have the defensive nationalism whereby protecting your home /homeland from outside aggression is a duty (if an intruder tried to enter your home and threaten your family , would you fight back or just hope that they are "terrestrial"?) . Would you protect your home only and not your homeland ? This second group of nationalists are made famous by names such as Gandhi, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Levesque, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or even Tito and Castro (2 authoritarian dictators though). Making it simple when its all quite complex is a slippery slope.
I am reminded of the motto of a Swiss school I attended in the 70s: "Be proud of hour heritage but respect those of others ". That is simple....
Indeed, nationalism has many hues. Extending this line of argument, was Lincoln not a nationalist then? And then you have nationalists with mixed legacies like Churchill.
It's all very well to imagine a borderless utopia but during the time we continue to live in sovereign states, our interests individually are also furthered when that of the state we live are best served. This does not mean international cooperation on ANYTHING at all should be jettisoned.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:40
My personal dilemma is that a lack of nationalism in the US has led to the Willy Chinese becoming the next global super power. A government that still can make citizens disappear over night without a trace.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:45
SteveG wrote:
My personal dilemma is that a lack of nationalism in the US has led to the Willy Chinese becoming the next global super power. A government that still can make citizens disappear over night without a trace.
Exactly. One cannot wish away the need to engage another hegemon, as messy as that may be. I read an article about how the Chinese govt leans on its many relationships with different countries to track down Uyghurs even after they have escaped China.
Yes, I get all the criticisms about the US and make many of them myself. But there is a danger of exaggerating such criticisms to an absurd extreme where suddenly Russia and China look like teddy bears which they definitely aren't. Russia is content to roar within its tent without venturing too far away on account of its weak economy but that is not the case with China, as their handling of Uyghurs show.
Posted By: Spaciousmind
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:49
ExittheLemming wrote:
Spaciousmind wrote:
Best to avoid words ending with "ism" in general as most are negative to living species beyond that small circle the particular word supports.
Rally the troops.
Optimism might get a pass though
Nice!! LOL
Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 08:51
Nationalism has never been a good thing. It is often conflated with patriotism, which is an entirely different thing. The basic simplification is patriotism good, nationalism bad. But as per Animal farm such simple rules (four legs good, two legs bad) don’t universally apply.
------------- https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 09:01
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
I'm neither a football fan, effectively.
That's commendable Luca, but it doesn't answer my question. Is it not the same thing?
Yes, it's the same thing. The left is not for competitive sports.
I know many lefties who are Ranger's fans and love it when Canadian teams get beaten. Perhaps that's just a North American thing.
Let's put it in this way: there's a certain difference between a football supporter and a hooligan, so there's a difference between one proud of his nation and a fascist.
Anyway, I like discussing politics in a different kind of social, so I'll just tell you why I'm (no longer) a football fan:
Many years ago, the Italian football federation, after realizing that all the Serie A teams have bribed about the naturalization of foreign players, decided to change the rules on the fly, otherwise the whole championship would have been relegated.
Later, a colleague told me who were the designed winners of Championship, cup and Cupwinners cup. And it happened.
Finally, another guy gave me the full results of the last championship day imcluding the sequence of the goals match by match.
Having realized that soccer is as credible as wrestling, I have decided to follow other sports, like i.e. Alpine Ski (as mentioned in my last review currently on the home page).
About politics, I'm proudly anarchist and Mikhail Bakunin is my favorite phylosopher. Try reading some of his books.
No races, no nations.
Ok, I'll give Bakunin a try but he might be too extreme for a brain washed Anerican like me.
At least Bakunin was russian but not communist. He was closer to illuminism, I think.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 09:03
SteveG wrote:
tszirmay wrote:
Nationalism has taken on a bad reputation recently mostly fuelled by the utopist/anarchist crowd, who look to alter/erase history (not a good thing) to suit some agenda of absolute equality and purity. In fact, there are 2 kinds of Nationalism . First, you have offensive militaristic warrior societies who want to expand their power (such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia), all have been historically condemned and rightly so.
Then you have the defensive nationalism whereby protecting your home /homeland from outside aggression is a duty (if an intruder tried to enter your home and threaten your family , would you fight back or just hope that they are "terrestrial"?) . Would you protect your home only and not your homeland ? This second group of nationalists are made famous by names such as Gandhi, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Levesque, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or even Tito and Castro (2 authoritarian dictators though). Making it simple when its all quite complex is a slippery slope.
I am reminded of the motto of a Swiss school I attended in the 70s: "Be proud of hour heritage but respect those of others ". That is simple....
Yes, it's impossible to say that Gandhi and Mandela are not nationists, at least it your definition of the term.
I disagree about Garibaldi. His right-hand man Bixio experimented the killing of civilians decades before the nazis.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 09:05
One of my old reviews where Garibaldi is mentioned
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 10:05
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
octopus-4 wrote:
It has always been a bad thing for me.
Think: proud for your nation (against each other)
proud for your region (against the rest of your nation)
proud for your city (against the rest of your region)
... and so on.
Does it really makes sense?
Proud for your tribe, your club, your relatives, your bedroom...
I am a terrestrial. This the only label that I can accept.
I understand your view. However, when a football fan is for his team and against the other, is that not the same thing, as geographical regions are what's being represented by the competing teams.
I'm neither a football fan, effectively.
That's commendable Luca, but it doesn't answer my question. Is it not the same thing?
Yes, it's the same thing. The left is not for competitive sports.
I know many lefties who are Ranger's fans and love it when Canadian teams get beaten. Perhaps that's just a North American thing.
Let's put it in this way: there's a certain difference between a football supporter and a hooligan, so there's a difference between one proud of his nation and a fascist.
Anyway, I like discussing politics in a different kind of social, so I'll just tell you why I'm (no longer) a football fan:
Many years ago, the Italian football federation, after realizing that all the Serie A teams have bribed about the naturalization of foreign players, decided to change the rules on the fly, otherwise the whole championship would have been relegated.
Later, a colleague told me who were the designed winners of Championship, cup and Cupwinners cup. And it happened.
Finally, another guy gave me the full results of the last championship day imcluding the sequence of the goals match by match.
Having realized that soccer is as credible as wrestling, I have decided to follow other sports, like i.e. Alpine Ski (as mentioned in my last review currently on the home page).
About politics, I'm proudly anarchist and Mikhail Bakunin is my favorite phylosopher. Try reading some of his books.
No races, no nations.
Ok, I'll give Bakunin a try but he might be too extreme for a brain washed Anerican like me.
At least Bakunin was russian but not communist. He was closer to illuminism, I think.
I figured as much as communism doesn't fit his mind set, but the cultural divide is still present between Russian and American, I would think.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 10:07
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
tszirmay wrote:
Nationalism has taken on a bad reputation recently mostly fuelled by the utopist/anarchist crowd, who look to alter/erase history (not a good thing) to suit some agenda of absolute equality and purity. In fact, there are 2 kinds of Nationalism . First, you have offensive militaristic warrior societies who want to expand their power (such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia), all have been historically condemned and rightly so.
Then you have the defensive nationalism whereby protecting your home /homeland from outside aggression is a duty (if an intruder tried to enter your home and threaten your family , would you fight back or just hope that they are "terrestrial"?) . Would you protect your home only and not your homeland ? This second group of nationalists are made famous by names such as Gandhi, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Levesque, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or even Tito and Castro (2 authoritarian dictators though). Making it simple when its all quite complex is a slippery slope.
I am reminded of the motto of a Swiss school I attended in the 70s: "Be proud of hour heritage but respect those of others ". That is simple....
Yes, it's impossible to say that Gandhi and Mandela are not nationists, at least it your definition of the term.
I disagree about Garibaldi. His right-hand man Bixio experimented the killing of civilians decades before the nazis.
Yes, that's why I only mentioned Gandhi and Mandela in my response. The others I purposely left out.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Shadowyzard
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 10:15
I actually don't care very much... I even have racist friends. But they are harmless, they only dislike black people. One of them likes African blacks only... The other is "allergic" (literally) to most black people, but she likes Shaquille O'Neal, and she also liked some of her black co-workers.
I personally know lots of awesome "nationalist" people... I also can be good with some fascists. Well, I'm an anarchist, but I believe in individualism and don't have prejudices because a person is "X'ist".
Ideologically, extremes can be dangerous but I'm not a politician, nor am I within such a group. So, it is not my duty to make the world a better place. Though, I always explicitly state my concerns.
Nationalism has become diluted after the 2nd WW, as postmodernism became prevalent. So, till the next phase; everyone can have their fun with their "-ism"s, I presume.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 10:18
Shadowyzard wrote:
I actually don't care very much... I even have racist friends. But they are harmless, they only dislike black people. One of them likes African blacks only... The other is "allergic" (literally) to most black people, but she likes Shaquille O'Neal, and she also liked some of her black co-workers.
They would do beautifully in America.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 10:52
I'm just a simple country Canuck so maybe my backwoods opinion is of little consequence here, but I would have to believe that the character of the person touting themselves as a nationalist plays a huge role in it's meaning. I certainly wouldn't use the term to describe myself, I would state "I'm a proud Canadian" or "I have great pride in my nation" not "I'm an nationalist."
I think most members here would agree that there is a world of difference between that hate filled excuse of a person DJT saying he's a nationalist and if Wayne Gretzky make the same statement. Context.
Just a quick note to Shadowyzard re: his comment "it is not my duty to make the world a better place"
Fair enough you feel that way, but rather than a duty don't you feel that we should all have a responsibility to try and make the world a better place? Now don't get me wrong, I realize that "better place" is very subjective term. I only have to look to our southern border to see that "better place" has two very distant extremes. That's not to say Canada doesn't suffer from that same ailment, maybe just not to the same extent. So I will always stand up and defend those who are attacked because of who they are or where they're from and not because of what they do.
------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music
Posted By: Shadowyzard
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 10:57
JD wrote:
Just a quick note to Shadowyzard re: his comment "it is not my duty to make the world a better place"
Fair enough you feel that way, but rather than a duty don't you feel that we should all have a responsibility to try and make the world a better place?
The rest of my line means that, I believe. At least, I wanted to mean that. In politics, I'm an anarchist but I also vote and state my concerns for attaining "a better country". I'm a wizard (lol) but my only political power is my vote, and my only influence can be stating my concerns. I think this way...
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 11:41
Shadowyzard wrote:
JD wrote:
Just a quick note to Shadowyzard re: his comment "it is not my duty to make the world a better place"
Fair enough you feel that way, but rather than a duty don't you feel that we should all have a responsibility to try and make the world a better place?
The rest of my line means that, I believe. At least, I wanted to mean that. In politics, I'm an anarchist but I also vote and state my concerns for attaining "a better country". I'm a wizard (lol) but my only political power is my vote, and my only influence can be stating my concerns. I think this way...
I see where you are located and I suspect that being an anarchist is much more difficult for you than for me.
From what you have written I'm sure that your vote matters.
------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 11:49
SteveG wrote:
Icarium wrote:
It depends on what you mean but i general the term nationalist is not something you entitle yoursself; it would no look good in a jobb resume, but where on drives the line between patriotisme, nationalisme and national soisialisme/nazisme is emotionaly difficult to do. It is all about where the emphesize is; if its culturally motivate then it's ok (accordikg to Walter Benjamin) if it's used politicly motivated; than it becomes a negative (accoording to Walter Benjamin)
A very good answer. I suppose many people align it into the old socialist/Nazi meaning when it's meant as an expression of patriotism. And I need to check out Walter Benjamin.
my bacground is a semi-bachelor in history and some attempts at aesthetic theory which includes some sociology about art and politics (vary neat actualy).
Based on how I understand the rize of both good and bad effects of 100 years ( between 1814 - 1900) of rize of norwegian indipendence from 450 years of union either to Denmark or Sweden) a nurturing and fertile led by idelology and renewable thoughts art, drama, litterature, music and language was hot topics locally which resulted in people like Munch, Ibsen, and Grieg. Mostly motivited by cultural growth and finding a voice and a collective story, collecting of fairytales.
Parallel to that the fear of politicized nationalisme and missuse of art as a way to sway political opinion or sway the population was being expressed in both accademic circuits im france and germany. Walter Benjamin became sort of the tragic hero to many of hes fellow Frankfurter school collegues - he wrote most of hes fears in a final essay which did not get released until after hes suicicide. Hes fear of being cought nad the distress became much worse then the fear of living life in distress and in unknowing.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
"That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi regime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin’s essay presents a theory of art that is “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art” in a mass-culture society.[2]"
is a describtion of thw fear he felt was real if art and peoples expression gets misused in the power of repruduction; as a text it stil have some questioks which have relevnce today, even though also is a text out of its time.
-------------
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 12:14
Icarium wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Icarium wrote:
It depends on what you mean but i general the term nationalist is not something you entitle yoursself; it would no look good in a jobb resume, but where on drives the line between patriotisme, nationalisme and national soisialisme/nazisme is emotionaly difficult to do. It is all about where the emphesize is; if its culturally motivate then it's ok (accordikg to Walter Benjamin) if it's used politicly motivated; than it becomes a negative (accoording to Walter Benjamin)
A very good answer. I suppose many people align it into the old socialist/Nazi meaning when it's meant as an expression of patriotism. And I need to check out Walter Benjamin.
my bacground is a semi-bachelor in history and some attempts at aesthetic theory which includes some sociology about art and politics (vary neat actualy).
Based on how I understand the rize of both good and bad effects of 100 years ( between 1814 - 1900) of rize of norwegian indipendence from 450 years of union either to Denmark or Sweden) a nurturing and fertile led by idelology and renewable thoughts art, drama, litterature, music and language was hot topics locally which resulted in people like Munch, Ibsen, and Grieg. Mostly motivited by cultural growth and finding a voice and a collective story, collecting of fairytales.
Parallel to that the fear of politicized nationalisme and missuse of art as a way to sway political opinion or sway the population was being expressed in both accademic circuits im france and germany. Walter Benjamin became sort of the tragic hero to many of hes fellow Frankfurter school collegues - he wrote most of hes fears in a final essay which did not get released until after hes suicicide. Hes fear of being cought nad the distress became much worse then the fear of living life in distress and in unknowing.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
"That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi regime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin’s essay presents a theory of art that is “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art” in a mass-culture society.[2]"
is a describtion of thw fear he felt was real if art and peoples expression gets misused in the power of repruduction; as a text it stil have some questioks which have relevnce today, even though also is a text out of its time.
Fascinating. I'm very interested in how art is used as propaganda and will definitely explore this man's work.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 12:56
From Wikipedia. Agree?
Nationalism
is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation" rel="nofollow - - group of people ), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Smith1-1" rel="nofollow - - sovereignty ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-governance" rel="nofollow - - homeland . Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination" rel="nofollow - - polity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Finlayson-2" rel="nofollow - - popular sovereignty ). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Smith1-1" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-3" rel="nofollow - - national identity , based on shared social characteristics of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture" rel="nofollow - - ethnicity , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_location" rel="nofollow - - language , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics" rel="nofollow - - government ), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion" rel="nofollow - - traditions and belief in a shared singular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Triandafyllidou-4" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Smith-5" rel="nofollow - - solidarity . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Smith1-1" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-6" rel="nofollow - - patriotism .Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism" rel="nofollow - - national conservatism ) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism" rel="nofollow - - left-wing nationalism ). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Finlayson-2" rel="nofollow - - kin group and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-9" rel="nofollow - - paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordialism" rel="nofollow - - Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and stresses the importance of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of nations and nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernization_theory_%28nationalism%29" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#cite_note-Anthony_Smith-10" rel="nofollow -
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 13:17
Yes, nationalism is a bad thing.
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 13:37
Nationalism is and has been such a bad word in my lexicon that I might call it the “N” word in polite company. Patriotism doesn’t have the same level of negative connotations for me, although it still does, so I don’t feel the need to abbreviate it to “P” to be polite when saying it. I will poo poo “P” though, and those who are stridently full of it, or claiming to be bursting at the seams with PP (Patriotic Pride). Too much national P and the whole world drowns, one might say.
------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 14:10
Taken from the definition above, we can see how nationalism inevitably leads to racism in a country that is already multi-cultural:
"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5]."
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 14:11
octopus-4 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
tszirmay wrote:
Nationalism has taken on a bad reputation recently mostly fuelled by the utopist/anarchist crowd, who look to alter/erase history (not a good thing) to suit some agenda of absolute equality and purity. In fact, there are 2 kinds of Nationalism . First, you have offensive militaristic warrior societies who want to expand their power (such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia), all have been historically condemned and rightly so.
Then you have the defensive nationalism whereby protecting your home /homeland from outside aggression is a duty (if an intruder tried to enter your home and threaten your family , would you fight back or just hope that they are "terrestrial"?) . Would you protect your home only and not your homeland ? This second group of nationalists are made famous by names such as Gandhi, Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Levesque, Garibaldi, Bismarck, or even Tito and Castro (2 authoritarian dictators though). Making it simple when its all quite complex is a slippery slope.
I am reminded of the motto of a Swiss school I attended in the 70s: "Be proud of hour heritage but respect those of others ". That is simple....
Yes, it's impossible to say that Gandhi and Mandela are not nationists, at least it your definition of the term.
I disagree about Garibaldi. His right-hand man Bixio experimented the killing of civilians decades before the nazis.
O Tempora O Mores
------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 14:13
Easy Money wrote:
Taken from the definition above, we can see how nationalism inevitably leads to racism in a country that is already multi-cultural:
"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5]."
Like Switzerland , with 4 languages and two major religions
------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 14:37
tszirmay wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Taken from the definition above, we can see how nationalism inevitably leads to racism in a country that is already multi-cultural:
"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5]."
Like Switzerland , with 4 languages and two major religions
And as I pointed out, the SNP and Plaid Cymru in Scotland and Wales are basically of the same political hue as Democrats in America, or the centre left parties in England. Both are committed to multicultural and multi ethnic societies in their respective countries, the only issue for them being that they want independence from the UK, or essentially England.
Nationalist parties are not necessarily right wing or racist, although I could make a cogent argument that the root core of many Plaid and Scot Nats supporters is a serious dislike of the English, so we can see that both you and John, in very different ways, are right, and that this debate is nothing like as simplistic as people would like to pretend.
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 15:25
lazland wrote:
tszirmay wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Taken from the definition above, we can see how nationalism inevitably leads to racism in a country that is already multi-cultural:
"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5]."
Like Switzerland , with 4 languages and two major religions
And as I pointed out, the SNP and Plaid Cymru in Scotland and Wales are basically of the same political hue as Democrats in America, or the centre left parties in England. Both are committed to multicultural and multi ethnic societies in their respective countries, the only issue for them being that they want independence from the UK, or essentially England.
Nationalist parties are not necessarily right wing or racist, although I could make a cogent argument that the root core of many Plaid and Scot Nats supporters is a serious dislike of the English, so we can see that both you and John, in very different ways, are right, and that this debate is nothing like as simplistic as people would like to pretend.
Yes, a simple yes or no answer to the question of my opening post is not viable and I'm surprised that some have gone the simplistic route. It is possible that a political ideology has both intrinsic positive and negitive aspects that can't be easily separated. Or ever be separated.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 15:36
SteveG wrote:
lazland wrote:
tszirmay wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Taken from the definition above, we can see how nationalism inevitably leads to racism in a country that is already multi-cultural:
"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5]."
Like Switzerland , with 4 languages and two major religions
And as I pointed out, the SNP and Plaid Cymru in Scotland and Wales are basically of the same political hue as Democrats in America, or the centre left parties in England. Both are committed to multicultural and multi ethnic societies in their respective countries, the only issue for them being that they want independence from the UK, or essentially England.
Nationalist parties are not necessarily right wing or racist, although I could make a cogent argument that the root core of many Plaid and Scot Nats supporters is a serious dislike of the English, so we can see that both you and John, in very different ways, are right, and that this debate is nothing like as simplistic as people would like to pretend.
Yes, a simple yes or no answer to the question of my opening post is not viable and I'm surprised that some have gone the simplistic route. It is possible that a political idiology has both intrinsic positive and negitive aspects that can't be easily separated. Or ever be separated.
Absolutely. Everybody should understand that one of the major issues we have in the world, and in the west in particular, is the recent triumph of dumbed down and simplistic debate and government, a crime of which the media are in particular very guilty.
Human life, emotions, politics, world affairs, you name it are not straightforward or capable of being answered by ridiculous sound bites and headline chasing tidbits. It is an extremely depressing state of affairs, and as you know, I hold the liberal left as much to blame for this as the populist right. Indeed, it has led to my breaking away from it totally and never to return.
This can only take us to a very bad place, and the rise of intolerance and ultimately totalitarian victory is my prediction of where we are going. It might not happen in our lifetimes, but history is a fickle mistress, and once a tide has turned, it is very often too late to steer the ship back. I don’t think we are quite there yet, but we are not far off.
Now. Anybody wish to no platform me for these shocking illiberal opinions?
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 15:44
Oh, liberals have thier share of blame and it comes down to the yes or no mentality. In the States we are in the throws of cancel culture where a person is shutdown forever for some trivial imperfection in an imperfect world full of imperfections. That's my right wing rant for today.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 15:58
SteveG wrote:
Oh, liberals have thier share of blame and it comes down to the yes or no mentality. In the States we are in the throws of cancel culture where a person is shutdown forever for some trivial imperfection in an imperfect world full of imperfections. That's my right wing rant for today.
This sums it all for me...Maher is left of center and so am I , but......
------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 16:01
It's true. Great minds do think alike. Seriously, thanks for posting that Doug.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 17:04
lazland wrote:
SteveG wrote:
lazland wrote:
tszirmay wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Taken from the definition above, we can see how nationalism inevitably leads to racism in a country that is already multi-cultural:
"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5]."
Like Switzerland , with 4 languages and two major religions
And as I pointed out, the SNP and Plaid Cymru in Scotland and Wales are basically of the same political hue as Democrats in America, or the centre left parties in England. Both are committed to multicultural and multi ethnic societies in their respective countries, the only issue for them being that they want independence from the UK, or essentially England.
Nationalist parties are not necessarily right wing or racist, although I could make a cogent argument that the root core of many Plaid and Scot Nats supporters is a serious dislike of the English, so we can see that both you and John, in very different ways, are right, and that this debate is nothing like as simplistic as people would like to pretend.
Yes, a simple yes or no answer to the question of my opening post is not viable and I'm surprised that some have gone the simplistic route. It is possible that a political idiology has both intrinsic positive and negitive aspects that can't be easily separated. Or ever be separated.
Absolutely. Everybody should understand that one of the major issues we have in the world, and in the west in particular, is the recent triumph of dumbed down and simplistic debate and government, a crime of which the media are in particular very guilty.
Human life, emotions, politics, world affairs, you name it are not straightforward or capable of being answered by ridiculous sound bites and headline chasing tidbits. It is an extremely depressing state of affairs, and as you know, I hold the liberal left as much to blame for this as the populist right. Indeed, it has led to my breaking away from it totally and never to return.
This can only take us to a very bad place, and the rise of intolerance and ultimately totalitarian victory is my prediction of where we are going. It might not happen in our lifetimes, but history is a fickle mistress, and once a tide has turned, it is very often too late to steer the ship back. I don’t think we are quite there yet, but we are not far off.
Now. Anybody wish to no platform me for these shocking illiberal opinions?
To your judicious point, Ted Koppel was asked upon his retirement if he feared the future of media in the Internet world and he replied that journalism has always been based on the W5 (who, what, where, when and why) but in the web age, there will be NO TIME for the why, because it may take too long to do the research. Oddly, when a crime is committed , the first thing the police ask is when and where (pretty straightforward) , followed hopefully by the what and the who. The Why? who knows and who cares..... That is where we are at, while being flippant about all kinds of overtly simplistic explanations , many are totally disinterested in the verification of facts and just drone on about all the negatives. In this thread, many have poopoohed nationalism but no one has of yet offered a positive alternative (except our anarchist friends who offer chaos , as per Proudhon and Bakunin) . Oh well.....plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....
I have disavowed both the left and the right as two sides of the same coin ,(they cannot really live without the other) and have been an advocate of direct democracy, where educated people decide by referendum the correct course of collective action. Like in Switzerland , a notoriously rabid nationalist/patriotic nation.
------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
Posted By: Shadowyzard
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 17:08
tszirmay wrote:
In this thread, many have poopoohed nationalism but no one has of yet offered a positive alternative (except our anarchist friends who offer chaos , as per Proudhon and Bakunin) . Oh well.....plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....
"A cosmic order without a God is impossible."
"Anarchy without chaos is impossible."
Same shallowness...
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 17:38
tszirmay wrote:
lazland wrote:
SteveG wrote:
lazland wrote:
tszirmay wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Taken from the definition above, we can see how nationalism inevitably leads to racism in a country that is already multi-cultural:
"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[4][5]."
Like Switzerland , with 4 languages and two major religions
And as I pointed out, the SNP and Plaid Cymru in Scotland and Wales are basically of the same political hue as Democrats in America, or the centre left parties in England. Both are committed to multicultural and multi ethnic societies in their respective countries, the only issue for them being that they want independence from the UK, or essentially England.
Nationalist parties are not necessarily right wing or racist, although I could make a cogent argument that the root core of many Plaid and Scot Nats supporters is a serious dislike of the English, so we can see that both you and John, in very different ways, are right, and that this debate is nothing like as simplistic as people would like to pretend.
Yes, a simple yes or no answer to the question of my opening post is not viable and I'm surprised that some have gone the simplistic route. It is possible that a political idiology has both intrinsic positive and negitive aspects that can't be easily separated. Or ever be separated.
Absolutely. Everybody should understand that one of the major issues we have in the world, and in the west in particular, is the recent triumph of dumbed down and simplistic debate and government, a crime of which the media are in particular very guilty.
Human life, emotions, politics, world affairs, you name it are not straightforward or capable of being answered by ridiculous sound bites and headline chasing tidbits. It is an extremely depressing state of affairs, and as you know, I hold the liberal left as much to blame for this as the populist right. Indeed, it has led to my breaking away from it totally and never to return.
This can only take us to a very bad place, and the rise of intolerance and ultimately totalitarian victory is my prediction of where we are going. It might not happen in our lifetimes, but history is a fickle mistress, and once a tide has turned, it is very often too late to steer the ship back. I don’t think we are quite there yet, but we are not far off.
Now. Anybody wish to no platform me for these shocking illiberal opinions?
To your judicious point, Ted Koppel was asked upon his retirement if he feared the future of media in the Internet world and he replied that journalism has always been based on the W5 (who, what, where, when and why) but in the web age, there will be NO TIME for the why, because it may take too long to do the research. Oddly, when a crime is committed , the first thing the police ask is when and where (pretty straightforward) , followed hopefully by the what and the who. The Why? who knows and who cares..... That is where we are at, while being flippant about all kinds of overtly simplistic explanations , many are totally disinterested in the verification of facts and just drone on about all the negatives. In this thread, many have poopoohed nationalism but no one has of yet offered a positive alternative (except our anarchist friends who offer chaos , as per Proudhon and Bakunin) . Oh well.....plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....
I have disavowed both the left and the right as two sides of the same coin ,(they cannot really live without the other) and have been an advocate of direct democracy, where educated people decide by referendum the correct course of collective action. Like in Switzerland , a notoriously rabid nationalist/patriotic nation.
There is no positive alternative. Only a negative one. That a foreign power will eventually swallow up a country that hates itself. Why bother to protect something you despise? Why fight for it? There is no better system just as thier are no better democratic governments. There is no perfect democratic system either. And this is something that countries like Russia and China live for. Already, Russia is massing 50,000 soldiers on the Ukraine border. If they will take over a country that wants no part of them then think what they will do to a country with no nationalist pride and patriotism.
Nationalism is either a positive thing or a necessary evil, depending on one's view point. But it is the only thing that will stop an expansionist power from taking over a free nation. And these countries will never entertain the idea of a no borders one world system. Unless they control it and it's citizens.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 18:25
Very cogent and sadly true status as proven by history , yesterday and beyond. This is where the danger lies, do we all collectively bend over because we HATE our own impotence ? Or do we defend our values, as imperfect as they are. China is looking at the West as a weak-kneed, chaotic and negative society whose time has come. China is now a bully , pushing a global dominance agenda that is clear and immediate, expressed by their own media. First in Asia, if there is no reaction, the next step is beyond. Its not as much nationalism that is the current bad but global blind surrender to greedy and nuclear megalomaniacs.
------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 18:47
Yes, as Laz said, there is no simple catch all answer. There are many more problems involved then just a lack of nationalism. But you have to start somewhere.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 19:03
I'm not sure but i'm finding it more awkward these days to include "antidisestablishmentarianism" into a casual conversation.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 19:17
It was never a topic that rolled off of one's tongue. Now or yesterday.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Crane
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 19:55
It’s not realistic to say “no borders, no countries.” It’s like saying you prefer to have no name and have no body. Well, you have a name and you have a body, whether you like it or not. It’s called being alive.
Nationalism can be taken to extremes, unfortunately. But I think it’s basically the expression of an instinct quite natural to all of us. We can speak of our indiscriminate love for all mankind, but out of all men, we’ll always love our own mother and father the most (those sad cases of abuse notwithstanding).
In the same way, we love the place we were born and raised the most. Love in the sense of having lived there, developed relationships there, grown in knowledge there, learned the place’s particularities, its nooks and crannies, its hills and streams, met its people, learned its language. Having gone to school there, got our first job there, met our wife there, raised our children there, mourned our loved ones there, grown old there.
The fact of human personhood and particularity means that we have our lifetime in this particular place and time, and not in any other. And it doesn’t seem like it needs to be exaggerated into hate for other places.
I see that nationalism has gained a lot of baggage from WWII. It seems that to lay the blame solely on nationalism must miss the mark. After all, weren’t the good guys in the war also extremely nationalistic?
------------- “Art is the recognition of the universal presence of God.” —Ernest Hello
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 12 2021 at 23:11
lazland wrote:
And as I pointed out, the SNP and Plaid Cymru in Scotland and Wales are basically of the same political hue as Democrats in America, or the centre left parties in England. Both are committed to multicultural and multi ethnic societies in their respective countries, the only issue for them being that they want independence from the UK, or essentially England.
Nationalist parties are not necessarily right wing or racist, although I could make a cogent argument that the root core of many Plaid and Scot Nats supporters is a serious dislike of the English, so we can see that both you and John, in very different ways, are right, and that this debate is nothing like as simplistic as people would like to pretend.
Indeed, the idea that nationalism necessarily always establishes ethno or racial superiority as the preferred instrument to unite people is flawed. And by the way, not as if the supposedly 'globalist' USSR project was free of prejudices either. It is a complicated subject.
Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 01:31
When I first saw this thread title I immediately thought that it would raise a lot of confusion in terminology, and I think I'm not mistaken. Their is a big difference between nationalism (as in the sense of the wiki-definition given above - a political ideology) and patriotism, protectionism, isolationism, self-determination, sovereignty, a strive for independence, a feeling of belonging to... Some hide themselves behind one of these latter words, but do adhere to the nationalist ideology. Others don't hesitate to call themselves nationalist, when they mean patriot, being a protectionist, or whatever else than the nationalism itself.
I don't think the SNP nor Plaid Cymru would claim to be nationalists in the sense of the wiki definition given here above (e.g. they would not have been in the group of the Greens in the European Parliament, where they were before Brexit). The UK is a rather particular context for this word, where it mainly means autonomy (in whatever form) regarding England.
Regarding this definition (or the one by the http://https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism/" rel="nofollow - Encyclopedia Britannica if you want it more thorough), if there are positive aspects to this ideology, they either translate to those other notions I mentioned above, or they are something of the past. Today's nationalism, as a political ideology - and especially in our modern globalized world - is in my opinion a despicable ideology, for all the racism, discrimination, superiority feeling, inequalities, apartheid, uniform culture etc. etc. that it induces. If this is the simplistic route, then I take it without hesitation.
A positive alternative? Humanism, I guess.
-------------
The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Posted By: Shadowyzard
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 02:56
Crane wrote:
It’s not realistic to say “no borders, no countries.” It’s like saying you prefer to have no name and have no body. Well, you have a name and you have a body, whether you like it or not. It’s called being alive.
Nationalism can be taken to extremes, unfortunately. But I think it’s basically the expression of an instinct quite natural to all of us. We can speak of our indiscriminate love for all mankind, but out of all men, we’ll always love our own mother and father the most (those sad cases of abuse notwithstanding).
You have some real rubbish rambling here. What is realistic and natural for you is ridiculous. I'll not bother to put my 2 cents here, as your arguments are worthless.
Posted By: Shadowyzard
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 03:11
suitkees wrote:
A positive alternative? Humanism, I guess.
But our "friend" that asked for an alternative is a misanthrope. Just look at his signature here.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 05:21
Shadowyzard wrote:
Crane wrote:
It’s not realistic to say “no borders, no countries.” It’s like saying you prefer to have no name and have no body. Well, you have a name and you have a body, whether you like it or not. It’s called being alive.
Nationalism can be taken to extremes, unfortunately. But I think it’s basically the expression of an instinct quite natural to all of us. We can speak of our indiscriminate love for all mankind, but out of all men, we’ll always love our own mother and father the most (those sad cases of abuse notwithstanding).
You have some real rubbish rambling here. What is realistic and natural for you is ridiculous. I'll not bother to put my 2 cents here, as your arguments are worthless.
We had 4 pages of a civil discussion between left and right viewpoints up until this post. Congratulations for breaking the peace.
There is nothing the least bit rubbish or rambling about Crane's post. He is emphasizing neo-tribalism, the modern social construct of tribalism, which I may add, is believed to be true by many social scientists, and seems more sensible than any one world no borders concept.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 05:27
suitkees wrote:
When I first saw this thread title I immediately thought that it would raise a lot of confusion in terminology, and I think I'm not mistaken. Their is a big difference between nationalism (as in the sense of the wiki-definition given above - a political ideology) and patriotism, protectionism, isolationism, self-determination, sovereignty, a strive for independence, a feeling of belonging to... Some hide themselves behind one of these latter words, but do adhere to the nationalist ideology. Others don't hesitate to call themselves nationalist, when they mean patriot, being a protectionist, or whatever else than the nationalism itself.
I don't think the SNP nor Plaid Cymru would claim to be nationalists in the sense of the wiki definition given here above (e.g. they would not have been in the group of the Greens in the European Parliament, where they were before Brexit). The UK is a rather particular context for this word, where it mainly means autonomy (in whatever form) regarding England.
Regarding this definition (or the one by the http://https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism/" rel="nofollow - Encyclopedia Britannica if you want it more thorough), if there are positive aspects to this ideology, they either translate to those other notions I mentioned above, or they are something of the past. Today's nationalism, as a political ideology - and especially in our modern globalized world - is in my opinion a despicable ideology, for all the racism, discrimination, superiority feeling, inequalities, apartheid, uniform culture etc. etc. that it induces. If this is the simplistic route, then I take it without hesitation.
A positive alternative? Humanism, I guess.
The reason that I left my opening post and introductory question without suppling the standard definition of nationalism as follows
an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
advocacy of political independence for a particular country.
is because I feel that it is an outdated dual meaning definition that does not reflect the current political climate and it's combined usage by those in any form of political discussion. In a perfect world, that would be true. But that's not the case, is it?
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Spaciousmind
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 05:31
Individualism (hmmm.. not sure were to place this one yet... one for one and one for one... or does it mean one for all and all for one?. It's a head scratcher)
THE PROS?
Optimism?
Humanism?
Don't kid yourself with Patriotism or its baby child nationalism. It has a rich history of brutality. Why? Because the manipulators of this world use it very nicely to build walls, Brexit oneself into a cocoon, to incite hate and jealousy and so on. Those are just examples in your back door no need to search down the street or across the river.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary on Patriotism:
There is hardly any judicious man but knoweth, that it was neither learning, piety, nor patriotism that perswaded any of that Nation to Presbytery….
—C.N., Reasons Why the Supreme Authority of the Three Nations (for the time) is not in the Parliament, 1653
There hath been in London, and repairing to it, for these many yeers together, a knot of Scotish bankers, collybists, or coinecoursers, of traffickers in Merchandise to and againe, and of men of other professions, who…hug all unto themselves; that, for no respect of vertue, honor, kinred, patriotism, or whatever else…whereof those quomodocunquizing clusterfists and rapacious varlets have given of late such cannibal-like proofs, by their inhumanity and obdurate carriage towards some (whose shoos-strings they are not worthy to unty) that were it not that a more able pen then mine, will assuredly not faile to jerk them on all sides….
—Thomas Urquhart, Ekskybalauron, 1652
Pretty clear examples from as far back as the 17th century were the use of it is used to incite and hurt your bones. Don't know what happened to these Scottish Bankers but whatever happened was probably not very good for them, but I do know a few years earlier very similarly all the Jews (moneylenders) who went for protection to a castle (can't remember which one) ended being locked into it and ended up mass suiciding rather than being hung drawn and quartered by the mob, who btw were incited by the King to avoid paying back the money he had borrowed and owed from them. I think this was your first Pogrom.
Witches burned at stake, ship off to America religious undesirables and so on and on and on.
Yep these words are bad as they have a rich history of use to manipulate and to incite murder, destruction and humiliation of others.
You just can't camouflage their history of use to incite the population that you want to control with some cleverly worded modern arguments, these words are tarnished beyond redemption.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 05:37
Individualism (hmmm.. not sure were to place this one yet... one for one and one for one... or does it mean one for all and all for one?. It's a head scratcher)
THE PROS?
Optimism?
Humanism?
Don't kid yourself with Patriotism or its baby child nationalism. It has a rich history of brutality. Why? Because the manipulators of this world use it very nicely to build walls, Brexit oneself into a cocoon, to incite hate and jealousy and so on. Those are just examples in your back door no need to search down the street or across the river.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary on Patriotism:
There is hardly any judicious man but knoweth, that it was neither learning, piety, nor patriotism that perswaded any of that Nation to Presbytery….
—C.N., Reasons Why the Supreme Authority of the Three Nations (for the time) is not in the Parliament, 1653
There hath been in London, and repairing to it, for these many yeers together, a knot of Scotish bankers, collybists, or coinecoursers, of traffickers in Merchandise to and againe, and of men of other professions, who…hug all unto themselves; that, for no respect of vertue, honor, kinred, patriotism, or whatever else…whereof those quomodocunquizing clusterfists and rapacious varlets have given of late such cannibal-like proofs, by their inhumanity and obdurate carriage towards some (whose shoos-strings they are not worthy to unty) that were it not that a more able pen then mine, will assuredly not faile to jerk them on all sides….
—Thomas Urquhart, Ekskybalauron, 1652
Pretty clear examples from as far back as the 17th century were the use of it is used to incite and hurt your bones. Don't know what happened to these Scottish Bankers but whatever happened was probably not very good for them, but I do know a few years earlier very similarly all the Jews (moneylenders) who went for protection to a castle (can't remember which one) ended being locked into it and ended up mass suiciding rather than being hung drawn and quartered by the mob, who btw were incited by the King to avoid paying back the money he had borrowed and owed from them. I think this was your first Pogrom.
Witches burned at stake, ship off to America religious undesirables and so on and on and on.
Yep these words are bad as they have a rich history of use to manipulate and to incite murder, destruction and humiliation of others.
You just can't camouflage their history of use to incite the population that you want to control with some cleverly worded modern arguments, these words are tarnished beyond redemption.
I don't see a single post here that is of the opinion that nationalism is without it's inherent evils both present and past. I also fail to see a single sensible alterative stated by anyone, who's posted so far, as a viable and doable replacement.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Shadowyzard
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 05:41
SteveG wrote:
We had 4 pages of a civil discussion between left and right viewpoints up until this post. Congratulations for breaking the peace.
Oh really?
Politeness can be something that which is hypocrisy, something which I entertain myself with... Seeing people pretending to hide their hostility. Really a funny thing.
I was just stating my opinion in an accurate and honest manner. And yes, sometimes I prefer not to be polite while doing so. No "sorry" for that.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 05:44
Shadowyzard wrote:
SteveG wrote:
We had 4 pages of a civil discussion between left and right viewpoints up until this post. Congratulations for breaking the peace.
Oh really?
Politeness can be something that which is hypocrisy, something which I entertain myself with... Seeing people pretending to hide their hostility. Really a funny thing.
I was just stating my opinion in an accurate and honest manner. And yes, sometimes I prefer not to be polite while doing so. No "sorry" for that.
I didn't expect anything less from you. Or better, in fact.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 05:52
SteveG wrote:
The reason that I left my opening post and introductory question without suppling the standard definition of nationalism as follows
an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
advocacy of political independence for a particular country.
is because I feel that it is an outdated dual meaning definition that does not reflect the current political climate and it's combined usage by those in any form of political discussion. In a perfect world, that would be true. But that's not the case, is it?
You're quite right. The problem is often that each of us has a different use of the word, especially when it's such a complex notion as you put under discussion here. That's why I prefer encyclopedias over dictionaries, because the first normally give also some historical context. And I think that we should not conclude that what are presented here as synonyms have exactly the same meaning as the word "nationalism" - I always take the stance that a different word generates different meanings, apart from the fact that context is also very determining for the generation of meaning (as was stated earlier in this thread). Words and their use are often much more complex than a dictionary can convey...
That is also why I think it is important to use the words that convey best the ideas we want to express (but the use of language is not that simple...). In some of the above reactions I think that words like "patriotism", "self-determination", "protectionism" cover better what one wants to express than the word "nationalism". It is also why I specified "nationalism as a political ideology", which for me goes beyond (and far beyond) mere patriotism, self-determination and other goals we can have that may have some very good things in it...
I guess you knew this discussion could go many ways! Which is a good thing, I think.
-------------
The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 06:21
It is quite amusing to see that some of the strongest proponents of anti-nationalism in this thread are the most militant with their words. If that is the case, one wonders how anti-nationalism could be trusted to give us a better world than the one we have. Maybe stop deluding yourselves that the solution lies in obliterating this or that 'ism' and accept that humanity in and of itself is deeply flawed and that we can only keep striving for progress in the face of these flaws.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 06:28
rogerthat wrote:
It is quite amusing to see that some of the strongest proponents of anti-nationalism in this thread are the most militant with their words. If that is the case, one wonders how anti-nationalism could be trusted to give us a better world than the one we have. Maybe stop deluding yourselves that the solution lies in obliterating this or that 'ism' and accept that humanity in and of itself is deeply flawed and that we can only keep striving for progress in the face of these flaws.
True Madan, on all counts. There's an old saying about people always becoming what they hate most. Perhaps it's true.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 07:00
Individualism (hmmm.. not sure were to place this one yet... one for one and one for one... or does it mean one for all and all for one?. It's a head scratcher)
THE PROS?
Optimism?
Humanism?
Don't kid yourself with Patriotism or its baby child nationalism. It has a rich history of brutality. Why? Because the manipulators of this world use it very nicely to build walls, Brexit oneself into a cocoon, to incite hate and jealousy and so on. Those are just examples in your back door no need to search down the street or across the river.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary on Patriotism:
There is hardly any judicious man but knoweth, that it was neither learning, piety, nor patriotism that perswaded any of that Nation to Presbytery….
—C.N., Reasons Why the Supreme Authority of the Three Nations (for the time) is not in the Parliament, 1653
There hath been in London, and repairing to it, for these many yeers together, a knot of Scotish bankers, collybists, or coinecoursers, of traffickers in Merchandise to and againe, and of men of other professions, who…hug all unto themselves; that, for no respect of vertue, honor, kinred, patriotism, or whatever else…whereof those quomodocunquizing clusterfists and rapacious varlets have given of late such cannibal-like proofs, by their inhumanity and obdurate carriage towards some (whose shoos-strings they are not worthy to unty) that were it not that a more able pen then mine, will assuredly not faile to jerk them on all sides….
—Thomas Urquhart, Ekskybalauron, 1652
Pretty clear examples from as far back as the 17th century were the use of it is used to incite and hurt your bones. Don't know what happened to these Scottish Bankers but whatever happened was probably not very good for them, but I do know a few years earlier very similarly all the Jews (moneylenders) who went for protection to a castle (can't remember which one) ended being locked into it and ended up mass suiciding rather than being hung drawn and quartered by the mob, who btw were incited by the King to avoid paying back the money he had borrowed and owed from them. I think this was your first Pogrom.
Witches burned at stake, ship off to America religious undesirables and so on and on and on.
Yep these words are bad as they have a rich history of use to manipulate and to incite murder, destruction and humiliation of others.
You just can't camouflage their history of use to incite the population that you want to control with some cleverly worded modern arguments, these words are tarnished beyond redemption.
I don't see a single post here that is of the opinion that nationalism is without it's inherent evils both present and past. I also fail to see a single sensible alterative stated by anyone, who's posted so far, as a viable and doable replacement.
Errr.. I had stated earlier that" I have been an advocate of direct democracy, where educated people decide by referendum the correct course of collective action. Like in Switzerland , a notoriously rabid nationalist/patriotic nation". Imagine that! Proud , efficient , social caring and rich , the people get to decide not some representative politico who is lobbying for his own agenda.
------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 07:12
Err.. that's a beautiful system, but would go over in Western countries like a lead balloon. I said I saw no viable and doable alternative. Key word being doable.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 07:29
SteveG wrote:
Err.. that's a beautiful system, but would go over in Western countries like a lead balloon. I said I saw no viable and doable alternative. Key word being doable.
Democracy itself is merely a least bad solution for large sized states, like anything with a population exceeding 50 mn or so. The moment you have a large state, the existence of some level of corruption can be assured as well as inequality in the distribution of wealth. If we throw in racial or ethnic diversity in the mix, you are also assured of communal strife and bouts of disharmony in society.
All of these problems can still be found in smaller states but the chances of getting a good govt and/or a better functioning society increase when the population unit to be governed gets smaller. That is why I am a big advocate of decentralization of power. But again, looking at the US example, we can conclude that even that is not a panacea. We have to be very careful what we decentralize as well.
Posted By: Shadowyzard
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 07:29
rogerthat wrote:
It is quite amusing to see that some of the strongest proponents of anti-nationalism in this thread are the most militant with their words. If that is the case, one wonders how anti-nationalism could be trusted to give us a better world than the one we have. Maybe stop deluding yourselves that the solution lies in obliterating this or that 'ism' and accept that humanity in and of itself is deeply flawed and that we can only keep striving for progress in the face of these flaws.
One doesn't even know the difference between "natural" and "cultural"... So, I attacked his "arguments", not himself. Every single person, including myself, can have dumb arguments. So, I'm not trying to kill anybody for what s/he said. I even haven't gotten into any physical fight in all my life. In that, I always used my diplomacy skills, without crying, "don't beat me pleaseeeeee..." or shouting "Shut up or I'll kill you!".
Anyway, this is getting annoying for me. I'll stop here. Have fun...
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 07:39
A wise decision. Go in peace.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 07:52
One thing's for sure, a One World plan is never going to transpire without the genocide of all those who oppose it, leaving behind only the advocates. Nationalism, patriotism (whatever you want to call it) and the nation state are here to stay, for better or worse.
The waving of flags and generalised mild, even unconscious xenophobia are symptoms of the human condition, and won't change.
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a 'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts, and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices, and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in trouble
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 07:58
Whether you are conservative, liberal or something in between, the alternative to nationalism is the individual. Free self determination functioning in a free society ruled by just law.
The individual is free to praise their country when it is right, and free to condemn their country when it is wrong. National pride is no excuse for ignoring the higher standards of what is morally right or wrong. The complex humanity of the individual stands in contrast to the drab conformity and uniform of the nationalist.
Discovery, exploration, music, art, poetry and love come from the individual, not the drab world of the uniformed nationalist. Nationalism chokes life down to a simple common denominator, where you just happened to be born.
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:00
SteveG wrote:
Shadowyzard wrote:
Crane wrote:
It’s not realistic to say “no borders, no countries.” It’s like saying you prefer to have no name and have no body. Well, you have a name and you have a body, whether you like it or not. It’s called being alive.
Nationalism can be taken to extremes, unfortunately. But I think it’s basically the expression of an instinct quite natural to all of us. We can speak of our indiscriminate love for all mankind, but out of all men, we’ll always love our own mother and father the most (those sad cases of abuse notwithstanding).
You have some real rubbish rambling here. What is realistic and natural for you is ridiculous. I'll not bother to put my 2 cents here, as your arguments are worthless.
We had 4 pages of a civil discussion between left and right viewpoints up until this post. Congratulations for breaking the peace.
There is nothing the least bit rubbish or rambling about Crane's post. He is emphasizing neo-tribalism, the modern social construct of tribalism, which I may add, is believed to be true by many social scientists, and seems more sensible than any one world no borders concept.
------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Posted By: Crane
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:12
Easy Money wrote:
Whether you are conservative, liberal or something in between, the alternative to nationalism is the individual. Free self determination functioning in a free society ruled by just law.
The individual is free to praise their country when it is right, and free to condemn their country when it is wrong. National pride is no excuse for ignoring the higher standards of what is morally right or wrong. The complex humanity of the individual stands in contrast to the drab conformity and uniform of the nationalist.
Discovery, exploration, music, art, poetry and love come from the individual, not the drab world of the uniformed nationalist. Nationalism chokes life down to a simple common denominator, where you just happened to be born.
Yet it is globalism which turns countries into ideologically indistinguishable ‘global villages’ like the Borg, and it seems to be so-called nationalists who oppose this most vehemently of all.
May explain why nationalism has become such a dirty word: its opponents are the ones who engineer the global culture.
------------- “Art is the recognition of the universal presence of God.” —Ernest Hello
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:14
Blacksword wrote:
One thing's for sure, a One World plan is never going to transpire without the genocide of all those who oppose it, leaving behind only the advocates. Nationalism, patriotism (whatever you want to call it) and the nation state are here to stay, for better or worse.
The waving of flags and generalised mild, even unconscious xenophobia are symptoms of the human condition, and won't change.
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a 'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts, and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices, and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in trouble
Andy, that last paragraph really does display a most shocking level of cynicism, and I honestly do not say that to have a pop at you, but as an observation.
The Human Condition, eh? A wonderful conceit!
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:18
Crane wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Whether you are conservative, liberal or something in between, the alternative to nationalism is the individual. Free self determination functioning in a free society ruled by just law.
The individual is free to praise their country when it is right, and free to condemn their country when it is wrong. National pride is no excuse for ignoring the higher standards of what is morally right or wrong. The complex humanity of the individual stands in contrast to the drab conformity and uniform of the nationalist.
Discovery, exploration, music, art, poetry and love come from the individual, not the drab world of the uniformed nationalist. Nationalism chokes life down to a simple common denominator, where you just happened to be born.
Yet it is globalism which turns countries into ideologically indistinguishable ‘global villages’ like the Borg, and it seems to be so-called nationalists who oppose this most vehemently of all.
I find this a very interesting post, as well, especially The Borg reference. I see this myself over here in Great Britain, especially in the recent history of government departments calling themselves “corporates” and “businesses”. What is encouraged here is a really depressing type of “group think” and anyone who has the temerity to depart from this had better watch out. I have made similar observations elsewhere on this thread and on the site. The way that many, or most, people like to queue up and be told what to do in their simplest day to day tasks is beyond depressing, really.
------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:22
lazland wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
One thing's for sure, a One World plan is never going to transpire without the genocide of all those who oppose it, leaving behind only the advocates. Nationalism, patriotism (whatever you want to call it) and the nation state are here to stay, for better or worse.
The waving of flags and generalised mild, even unconscious xenophobia are symptoms of the human condition, and won't change.
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a 'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts, and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices, and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in trouble
Andy, that last paragraph really does display a most shocking level of cynicism, and I honestly do not say that to have a pop at you, but as an observation.
The Human Condition, eh? A wonderful conceit!
Well, Andy is an unapologetic Marxist...
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:25
Crane wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Whether you are conservative, liberal or something in between, the alternative to nationalism is the individual. Free self determination functioning in a free society ruled by just law.
The individual is free to praise their country when it is right, and free to condemn their country when it is wrong. National pride is no excuse for ignoring the higher standards of what is morally right or wrong. The complex humanity of the individual stands in contrast to the drab conformity and uniform of the nationalist.
Discovery, exploration, music, art, poetry and love come from the individual, not the drab world of the uniformed nationalist. Nationalism chokes life down to a simple common denominator, where you just happened to be born.
Yet it is globalism which turns countries into ideologically indistinguishable ‘global villages’ like the Borg, and it seems to be so-called nationalists who oppose this most vehemently of all.
May explain why nationalism has become such a dirty word: its opponents are the ones who engineer the global culture.
Championing the individual and their self-determination stands in contrast to the globalist and the nationalist. Standing up to nationalism does not make you a globalist, it makes you a freedom loving individual.
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:26
lazland wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
One thing's for sure, a One World plan is never going to transpire without the genocide of all those who oppose it, leaving behind only the advocates. Nationalism, patriotism (whatever you want to call it) and the nation state are here to stay, for better or worse.
The waving of flags and generalised mild, even unconscious xenophobia are symptoms of the human condition, and won't change.
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a 'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts, and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices, and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in trouble
Andy, that last paragraph really does display a most shocking level of cynicism, and I honestly do not say that to have a pop at you, but as an observation.
The Human Condition, eh? A wonderful conceit!
I agree totally. Very cynical. It's a cynical world we live in.
My closing contention is also fairly narrow in scope, I admit. Nationalism can just as much be catalyzed by wealth as it can by poverty.
My world view has always been quite dark. I've never felt pride in my country but neither do I hate it. I always felt that both patriotism and nationalism were substitutes for something more important that people couldn't or wouldn't grasp. Maybe if I'd lived through a war, I'd feel different.
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:26
lazland wrote:
Crane wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Whether you are conservative, liberal or something in between, the alternative to nationalism is the individual. Free self determination functioning in a free society ruled by just law.
The individual is free to praise their country when it is right, and free to condemn their country when it is wrong. National pride is no excuse for ignoring the higher standards of what is morally right or wrong. The complex humanity of the individual stands in contrast to the drab conformity and uniform of the nationalist.
Discovery, exploration, music, art, poetry and love come from the individual, not the drab world of the uniformed nationalist. Nationalism chokes life down to a simple common denominator, where you just happened to be born.
Yet it is globalism which turns countries into ideologically indistinguishable ‘global villages’ like the Borg, and it seems to be so-called nationalists who oppose this most vehemently of all.
I find this a very interesting post, as well, especially The Borg reference. I see this myself over here in Great Britain, especially in the recent history of government departments calling themselves “corporates” and “businesses”. What is encouraged here is a really depressing type of “group think” and anyone who has the temerity to depart from this had better watch out. I have made similar observations elsewhere on this thread and on the site. The way that many, or most, people like to queue up and be told what to do in their simplest day to day tasks is beyond depressing, really.
Shades of the Animals album, I dare say. Amazing how this sheep like thinking and behavior is never changing, no matter how much of it has been criticized in art and literature through the decades.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:31
SteveG wrote:
lazland wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
One thing's for sure, a One World plan is never going to transpire without the genocide of all those who oppose it, leaving behind only the advocates. Nationalism, patriotism (whatever you want to call it) and the nation state are here to stay, for better or worse.
The waving of flags and generalised mild, even unconscious xenophobia are symptoms of the human condition, and won't change.
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a 'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts, and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices, and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in trouble
Andy, that last paragraph really does display a most shocking level of cynicism, and I honestly do not say that to have a pop at you, but as an observation.
The Human Condition, eh? A wonderful conceit!
Well, Andy is an unapologetic Marxist...
Am I? I didn't know that. I'm worried now...
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:39
Blacksword wrote:
SteveG wrote:
lazland wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
One thing's for sure, a One World plan is never going to transpire without the genocide of all those who oppose it, leaving behind only the advocates. Nationalism, patriotism (whatever you want to call it) and the nation state are here to stay, for better or worse.
The waving of flags and generalised mild, even unconscious xenophobia are symptoms of the human condition, and won't change.
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a 'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts, and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices, and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in trouble
Andy, that last paragraph really does display a most shocking level of cynicism, and I honestly do not say that to have a pop at you, but as an observation.
The Human Condition, eh? A wonderful conceit!
Well, Andy is an unapologetic Marxist...
Am I? I didn't know that. I'm worried now...
No need to worry. It's like a 24 hour flu bug. When you wake up tomorrow you'll be checking your latest compound interest.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:40
Easy Money wrote:
Championing the individual and their self-determination stands in contrast to the globalist and the nationalist. Standing up to nationalism does not make you a globalist, it makes you a freedom loving individual.
Had you stood up to nationalism in pre-independent India, you would have only served to further the cause of the British Empire.
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:46
SteveG wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
SteveG wrote:
lazland wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
One thing's for sure, a One World plan is never going to transpire without the genocide of all those who oppose it, leaving behind only the advocates. Nationalism, patriotism (whatever you want to call it) and the nation state are here to stay, for better or worse.
The waving of flags and generalised mild, even unconscious xenophobia are symptoms of the human condition, and won't change.
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a 'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts, and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices, and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in trouble
Andy, that last paragraph really does display a most shocking level of cynicism, and I honestly do not say that to have a pop at you, but as an observation.
The Human Condition, eh? A wonderful conceit!
Well, Andy is an unapologetic Marxist...
Am I? I didn't know that. I'm worried now...
No need to worry. It's like a 24 hour flu bug. When you wake up tomorrow you'll be checking your latest compound interest.
Over my soy latte, and before my daily bicycle ride with Owen Jones...
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:47
Blacksword wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
SteveG wrote:
lazland wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
One thing's for sure, a One World plan is never going to transpire without the genocide of all those who oppose it, leaving behind only the advocates. Nationalism, patriotism (whatever you want to call it) and the nation state are here to stay, for better or worse.
The waving of flags and generalised mild, even unconscious xenophobia are symptoms of the human condition, and won't change.
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a 'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts, and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices, and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in trouble
Andy, that last paragraph really does display a most shocking level of cynicism, and I honestly do not say that to have a pop at you, but as an observation.
The Human Condition, eh? A wonderful conceit!
Well, Andy is an unapologetic Marxist...
Am I? I didn't know that. I'm worried now...
No need to worry. It's like a 24 hour flu bug. When you wake up tomorrow you'll be checking your latest compound interest.
Over my soy latte, and before my daily bicycle ride with Owen Jones...
Quite.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 08:58
SteveG wrote:
Err.. that's a beautiful system, but would go over in Western countries like a lead balloon. I said I saw no viable and doable alternative. Key word being doable.
The reason why Switzerland is the only country with a form of direct-democracy is because elsewhere politicians do not want to be held accountable by the people . My representative does not know me and I barely know him , yet he vehiculates my social, economic and political wishes. I am sad to report that does not happen. Certainly not in representative governments like the lovely EU . If it is doable in Switzerland , why would that be not doable elsewhere? Answer: Resistance by the careerist politicians , who have a great track record .....of incompetence and privilege .
------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth.
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 09:01
rogerthat wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Championing the individual and their self-determination stands in contrast to the globalist and the nationalist. Standing up to nationalism does not make you a globalist, it makes you a freedom loving individual.
Had you stood up to nationalism in pre-independent India, you would have only served to further the cause of the British Empire.
Standing up to tyranny is also the mark of a proud lover of individual freedom and self determination. Standing up to tyranny does not necessarily have to do with nationalism, it has more to do with standing up for what is morally right and throwing off your oppressors.
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 09:08
Easy Money wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Championing the individual and their self-determination stands in contrast to the globalist and the nationalist. Standing up to nationalism does not make you a globalist, it makes you a freedom loving individual.
Had you stood up to nationalism in pre-independent India, you would have only served to further the cause of the British Empire.
Standing up to tyranny is also the mark of a proud lover of individual freedom and self determination. Standing up to tyranny does not necessarily have to do with nationalism, it has more to do with standing up for what is morally right and throwing off your oppressors.
But what you don't seem to appreciate is that to get a mass of people to stand up against tyranny requires self determination around the idea of a nation-state. Gandhi had to sell the idea of an independent nation of India as something to aspire to in order for people to rally around him. Nation-states in many cases, including the US, were a response to the tyranny of supra-national empires.
I am not saying nationalism is always a good thing, obviously. But I also fail to see how it is uniformly bad in every context and there is ample evidence from history of nationalism being invoked to fight the tyranny of imperialism/empires (or just a larger oppressive nation-state).
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 09:13
tszirmay wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Err.. that's a beautiful system, but would go over in Western countries like a lead balloon. I said I saw no viable and doable alternative. Key word being doable.
<p ="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb69, 69, 69;"> <p ="p1" style="margin: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; color: rgb69, 69, 69;">The reason why Switzerland is the only country with a form of direct-democracy is because elsewhere politicians do not want to be held accountable by the people . My representative does not know me and I barely know him , yet he vehiculates my social, economic and political wishes. I am sad to report that does not happen. Certainly not in representative governments like the lovely EU . If it is doable in Switzerland , why would that be not doable elsewhere? Answer: Resistance by the careerist politicians , who have a great track record .....of incompetence and privilege .
Well, I can speak most knowingly about America and it's political workings better than the UK and the EU. Though I'm not altogether ignorant of those political systems. In the US, politicians and political parties are highly influenced by big corporate money, be it oil, food, medical drugs, what have you, and no politician on either side would ever suggest a change from that, or propose laws and ammendnents to change that. And that's what would need to be done just for starters. And as you stated, politicians don't want to be held directly responsible by people. The reasons are manifold as to why it's not a viable political system for the US.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 09:17
rogerthat wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
Championing the individual and their self-determination stands in contrast to the globalist and the nationalist. Standing up to nationalism does not make you a globalist, it makes you a freedom loving individual.
Had you stood up to nationalism in pre-independent India, you would have only served to further the cause of the British Empire.
Standing up to tyranny is also the mark of a proud lover of individual freedom and self determination. Standing up to tyranny does not necessarily have to do with nationalism, it has more to do with standing up for what is morally right and throwing off your oppressors.
But what you don't seem to appreciate is that to get a mass of people to stand up against tyranny requires self determination around the idea of a nation-state. Gandhi had to sell the idea of an independent nation of India as something to aspire to in order for people to rally around him. Nation-states in many cases, including the US, were a response to the tyranny of supra-national empires.
I am not saying nationalism is always a good thing, obviously. But I also fail to see how it is uniformly bad in every context and there is ample evidence from history of nationalism being invoked to fight the tyranny of imperialism/empires (or just a larger oppressive nation-state).
Well, short answer, I agree with you, but, an oppressed people banding together for whatever reason is far more complex than mere nationalism. I think the salient factor in this situation is trying to throw off the shackles of the oppressor. Once again, someone who cared less about an Indian state could have joined the fight against the British just because it was the right thing to do.
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 13 2021 at 09:53
Blacksword wrote:
In any case the best way to keep nationalism alive, is to maintain a
'poor class' who have little else to hang their pride on, beyond
arbitrary citizenship in their birth nation, and the belief that that
matters. Fill these peoples bellies, put money in their bank accounts,
and give them prospects and they'll start making constructive choices,
and questioning their bad ones. That's when government finds itself in
trouble
I don't think your perspective overly cynical at all. The political class have always publicly supported education but covertly despised it as it reduces their ability to have an electorate do their bidding e.g. to go to war, vote for them, target scapegoats for all societal ills etc Education can really only teach us at best, self awareness and critical thinking. Most politicians usually offer us (imaginary) rights but seldom our very real moral obligation not to be complete self serving dicks.
Icarium wrote:
