Current Events > How are people still dumb enough to fall for nationalism?

(+) Yeah! (+)

i don't exactly like nationalism, but it benefits me. it may seem harsh, but i do care more about americans than most citizens of other countries. my countrymen share my values, at least for the most part. and certainly hold more similar values than someone from a different country.

is it selfish? absolutely. but everyone is selfish.
---

Nationalism is just another form of tribalism. To argue only dumb people follow it is to, ironically, ignore the entirety of evolution and natural selection.
---

Roxborough4Ever posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Lordsai posted...

Better than globalism.

What's wrong with globalism?

you live in 600 square foot apartment, no car, just public transit and when you start to go blind they give you a cane because surgery is out of the question for you, the resources must be saved for the younger people

I like turtles
---

county =/= nation.

pick which one you want to discuss first.

then come back.
---

forget it, tc. they're hopeless

And what's the alternative to nationalism? Extreme globalism?

So on one hand you have nationalism which bonds people together and gives them a sense of identity and belonging. My country my people first. Done right you get countries like Japan. While not perfect, they're still a testimony that it can be done right.

On the other hand you have globalism which strips you of identity and belonging slowly by muddying the lines between what it means to be French and why should France be for the French instead of everybody? Eventually your country gets striped of its original identity and history and your land doesn't belong to you anymore.

I'd take nationalism any day over shitty globalism.
---

Why the fuck does North Korea think this way?

Why the fuck doesn't ISIS think this way, fuck.

Fucking China wtf is wrong with them

butthole666 posted...

Literally being brainwashed and manipulated by people who were born better than you for nothing more than to benefit them and preserve their standing at the top. Your country doesn't "stand" for jack fucking shit.



It's truly amazing.

Send this message straight to Japan. They need you right now.

shockthemonkey posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

And what's the alternative to nationalism? Extreme globalism?

So on one hand you have nationalism which bonds people together and gives them a sense of identity and belonging. My country my people first. Done right you get countries like Japan. While not perfect, they're still a testimony that it can be done right.

On the other hand you have globalism which strips you of identity and belonging slowly by muddying the lines between what it means to be French and why should France be for the French instead of everybody? Eventually your country gets striped of its original identity and history and your land doesn't belong to you anymore.

I'd take nationalism any day over shitty globalism.

Holy shit people like you can actually vote

To be fair i only think like this regarding ancestral homelands of different people. So I want Europe to remain overwhelmingly European and Asia to remain mostly Asian etc. Some globalism is good, but not so much that it leads to self destruction of identity, culture and land rights.

America, Canada, Australia are not the ancestral homelands of any people living there so I dont really care when it comes to them.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

America, Canada, Australia are not the ancestral homelands of any people

oh BOY do i got news for YOU
---

Kaname_Madoka posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

America, Canada, Australia are not the ancestral homelands of any people

oh BOY do i got news for YOU

Of any people besides the indigenous people but they lost their land long ago and are never getting it back. It's gone for good. As for the rest of the world who moved into those countries, it's not their ancestral land.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Kaname_Madoka posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

America, Canada, Australia are not the ancestral homelands of any people

oh BOY do i got news for YOU

Of any people besides the indigenous people but they lost their land long ago and are never getting it back.

in canada they are starting to get it back
---

Kaname_Madoka posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Kaname_Madoka posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

America, Canada, Australia are not the ancestral homelands of any people

oh BOY do i got news for YOU

Of any people besides the indigenous people but they lost their land long ago and are never getting it back.

in canada they are starting to get it back

Really? Huh. How does that work?

I mean the country has been influenced by western culture and non western culture for generations. You can't just make Canada un-multicultural again.

How exactly are the indigenous people reclaiming Canada? This is very interesting.
---

Civic nationalism is cool. Nationalism as an anticolonial ideological tool is cool. Ethnic nationalism is cancer. At some point, nationalism's gotta go though. There are issues beyond the scope of a nation, like global warming, that require cooperation on an international level to be addressed. If you leave it up to individual nations, they will prioritize their short term national needs over the long term good of the world as a whole.
---

Imagine being proud of being born on one side of an imaginary line as opposed to the other side of that same imaginary line.
---

I dunno. You'd think they'd have read a fucking history book and learned how to socialize.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

And what's the alternative to nationalism? Extreme globalism?

So on one hand you have nationalism which bonds people together and gives them a sense of identity and belonging. My country my people first. Done right you get countries like Japan. While not perfect, they're still a testimony that it can be done right.

On the other hand you have globalism which strips you of identity and belonging slowly by muddying the lines between what it means to be French and why should France be for the French instead of everybody? Eventually your country gets striped of its original identity and history and your land doesn't belong to you anymore.

I'd take nationalism any day over shitty globalism.

Literally, slippery slope argument.

I haven't seen a good argument for it, at least from a moral standpoint. Every single one is a logical fallacy.

Nationalism is ultimately destructive because it purports that there is something inherent in your country that makes it superior to others. That is destructive in two ways. First, by encouraging xenophobia, you are cutting yourself from relationships with other countries that can be incredibly helpful and symbiotic. Second, you are telling people that their country is already perfect and that they don't need to question or grow. That leads to total stagnation in your population and you end up getting surpassed by everyone else.

Dash_Harber posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

And what's the alternative to nationalism? Extreme globalism?

So on one hand you have nationalism which bonds people together and gives them a sense of identity and belonging. My country my people first. Done right you get countries like Japan. While not perfect, they're still a testimony that it can be done right.

On the other hand you have globalism which strips you of identity and belonging slowly by muddying the lines between what it means to be French and why should France be for the French instead of everybody? Eventually your country gets striped of its original identity and history and your land doesn't belong to you anymore.

I'd take nationalism any day over shitty globalism.

Literally, slippery slope argument.

I haven't seen a good argument for it, at least from a moral standpoint. Every single one is a logical fallacy.

Nationalism is ultimately destructive because it purports that there is something inherent in your country that makes it superior to others. That is destructive in two ways. First, by encouraging xenophobia, you are cutting yourself from relationships with other countries that can be incredibly helpful and symbiotic. Second, you are telling people that their country is already perfect and that they don't need to question or grow. That leads to total stagnation in your population and you end up getting surpassed by everyone else.

You can partake in globalism when it comes to trade and simply working with other countries. But there is no argument that you can use to prove that globalism in the form of mass immigration doesn't change the identity or culture of the host country. Every western country in Europe that's receiving mass immigration is losing its ethnic and cultural identity. Whether you like this or not it's happening.

So I don't support isolationist nationalism on the world stage, I simply support the refusal of mass immigration in order to preserve identity and culture.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Done right you get countries like Japan.

Done poorly you get countries like Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, Portugal in the 20th century
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

You can partake in globalism when it comes to trade and simply working with other countries.

Please quote where I mentioned globalism.

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

But there is no argument that you can use to prove that globalism in the form of mass immigration doesn't change the identity or culture of the host country. Every western country in Europe that's receiving mass immigration is losing its ethnic and cultural identity. Whether you like this or not it's happening.

This is such a bullshit argument. First of all, you are absolutely right that culture and heritage change. What you are wrong about is that there is a static cultural identity to being with. Literally every current major culture is an amalgamation of tons of different cultures.

Here, let's take Britain for example. So by your logic, the British deserve to keep British culture in it's current state forever. What is a Britain, though? So you have prehistoric migration from the Celts. They spread out and divided into different tribes. Then you have the Romans. Then you have the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes. Then you have the Danes. Then you have the Normans (who are French). Then you have British Imperialism, which created the mass import of tons of different peoples (Africans, Native Americans, Asians, etc). So what the fuck is so important about suddenly keeping the current culture stagnant?

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

So I don't support isolationist nationalism on the world stage, I simply support the refusal of mass immigration in order to preserve identity and culture.

Literally never mentioned anything about immigration. You are trying to derail this because you can't defend nationalism as an idea.

Lordsai posted...

Better than globalism.

Globalism ftw! One love. :3

butthole666 posted...

Literally being brainwashed and manipulated by people who were born better than you for nothing more than to benefit them and preserve their standing at the top.

Literally Globalism though.
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Literally Globalism though.

\m/

you ever notice the first people to shit on nationalism on CE are also the first people to make a big fucking stink about how great they are for living in california and/or west coast?
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

you ever notice the first people to shit on nationalism on CE are also the first people to make a big fucking stink about how great they are for living in california and/or west coast?

Nope. I don't live in those states. :^O

butthole666 posted...

"I take PRIDE in my country!"


I too take pride in things I contributed nothing to and did not have a choice in being involved in, balding middle aged factory worker.

strawman
---

@Dash_Harber

Are you trying to compare the amount of ancient immigration to the amount we have today? You're trying to compare a few thousand immigrants or less per year in ancient times to hundreds of thousands to 1 million+ today?

Come on man. Whether you like it or not homogeneous countries exist in the world for a reason. And that reason is tribal. Homogenous countries like Germany or Japan have existed for countless generations since ancient times. The people there have a history of blood, sweat and tears from protecting their land. The history and culture that's unique to only Germany and Japan, to those ethnic people, is their identity, a shared identity and culture and history that nobody else in the world has.

You seem to think that this type of identity is something you can just throw away because "culture is always changing". Yea it is changing, but it's being changed by the will of the people in their own countries. No forced influence in the form of the movement of massive amounts of immigration.

An example would be western influence that spread worldwide where there is almost no white people living. So pick any country. Japan, Mexico, whichever. They simply incorporated some western culture into their own, BUT, MADE it their own. There is no mistaking that Japan and Mexico are not multicultural by western standards even though both have elements of western culture that they molded into their own. They are homogeneous.

So again whether you like it or not, whether you want to argue semantics, non of that matters. Everyone wants to preserve their heritage over the the long and you're going to have a heck of a hard time convincing them otherwise.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

@Dash_Harber

Are you trying to compare the amount of ancient immigration to the amount we have today? You're trying to compare a few thousand immigrants or less per year in ancient times to hundreds of thousands to 1 million+ today?

Come on man. Whether you like it or not homogeneous countries exist in the world for a reason. And that reason is tribal. Homogenous countries like Germany or Japan have existed for countless generations since ancient times. The people there have a history of blood, sweat and tears from protecting their land. The history and culture that's unique to only Germany and Japan, to those ethnic people, is their identity, a shared identity and culture and history that nobody else in the world has.

You seem to think that this type of identity is something you can just throw away because "culture is always changing". Yea it is changing, but it's being changed by the will of the people in their own countries. No forced influence in the form of the movement of massive amounts of immigration.

An example would be western influence that spread worldwide where there is almost no white people living. So pick any country. Japan, Mexico, whichever. They simply incorporated some western culture into their own, BUT, MADE it their own. There is no mistaking that Japan and Mexico are not multicultural by western standards even though both have elements of western culture that they molded into their own. They are homogeneous.

So again whether you like it or not, whether you want to argue semantics, non of that matters. Everyone wants to preserve their heritage over the the long and you're going to have a heck of a hard time convincing them otherwise.

What's your basis for this? There are many individuals who do not preserve their heritage, and some who do so deliberately (i.e. adopting new beliefs/practices, while dropping the ones of their parents/ancestors). Additionally, there are CLEARLY many people in the US who embrace globalism and want the US to change its culture and be more inclusive. I think it's fairly clear its not the case that "everyone" wants to preserve their culture. I do not believe this is a universal value.

I do agree though, that those who don't want to change are hard to convince. They are the ones who combat progress and change, and they always have (and will continue to do so forever).

Also, I think there's some assumption made by some people that maintaining the current culture is somehow a virtue. There were concepts held in society hundreds, and thousands of years ago that have changed because people realized they don't work for us anymore.Treatment of women, and minorities are examples of this. While some people rebel against those aspects of culture changing, many realize that some changes are for the better. Honestly, the belief that the current culture is superior to any potential input from other sources are often in racism and bigotry, with the assumption that what is here now is better than any other possible outcome. Things change, and its silly to assume that this is categorically a negative thing.

@Fam_Fam

Maybe i should've been a little more clear. But keep in mind that I'm not talking about western countries outside of Europe. America, Canada, Australia have never been homogeneous besides the indigenous people obviously, but the current form of these countries was built on the premise of diversity. Homogenous countries were/are not.


But realistically diversity is not bad when done well. When it's incorporated at a steady pace where people can make it their own, you get wonderful results. But people are skeptical about the way it's being incorporated in the West today.

Specifically the sheer speed of it. Western European countries that are homogeneous or at least mostly homogeneous like Germany and France are having so much immigration that it's a shock to the system. These western countries can't adapt to or incorporate all these different cultures into their OWN culture fast enough to make it a melting pot and instead they're getting a salad bowl.

It's hard to argue against the social evidence that the way multiculturalism has been tried in the last 50 years has had many negatives in western Europe and the tensions are only rising. Even Japan is struggling with the reality that they might have to accept mass immigration due to their shrinking population.

The change is simply happening way too fast for these countries to adapt and others who see this are saying "we don't want that here".
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

@Fam_Fam

Maybe i should've been a little more clear. But keep in mind that I'm not talking about western countries outside of Europe. America, Canada, Australia have never been homogeneous besides the indigenous people obviously, but the current form of these countries was built on the premise of diversity. Homogenous countries were/are not.


But realistically diversity is not bad when done well. When it's incorporated at a steady pace where people can make it their own, you get wonderful results. But people are skeptical about the way it's being incorporated in the West today.

Specifically the sheer speed of it. Western European countries that are homogeneous or at least mostly homogeneous like Germany and France are having so much immigration that it's a shock to the system. These western countries can't adapt to or incorporate all these different cultures into their OWN culture fast enough to make it a melting pot and instead they're getting a salad bowl.

It's hard to argue against the social evidence that the way multiculturalism has been tried in the last 50 years has had many negatives in western Europe and the tensions are only rising. Even Japan is struggling with the reality that they might have to accept mass immigration due to their shrinking population.

The change is simply happening way too fast for these countries to adapt and others who see this are saying "we don't want that here".

i agree that immigration is a difficult thing to handle, and I think the best solution is to manage the amount that come in, and who comes in. Not to try to prevent change, or to counteract it. I agree its a shock to the system.

However, frankly part of the problem of destabilization of the West is a result of Western interference in politics elsewhere. The West has pushed the dominoes over the last century, and now its falling back upon the West. Change this, and things might be able to improve in the future. Islamic terrorism is a result of Western policies that destabilized Muslim countries, not Islam itself. People who are discontent with the West's role in the Middle East are using Islam as a tool in order to fight back. If we can understand that Islam itself is not the enemy, we can start working towards making everything work out (at least improve the situation, fixing it probably is very hopeful thinking). Part of that is understanding the West's role in bringing about the immigration crisis in the first place.

Fam_Fam posted...

Islamic terrorism is a result of Western policies that destabilized Muslim countries, not Islam itself.

That is objectively untrue, by their own volition:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11793770

The magazine’s editors answer this question in what appears to be the issue’s centerpiece article, “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You”: Hating sinners and killing disbelievers is also part of fitrah. According to ISIS, it is the Muslim’s duty to kill sinners and non-Muslims.

ISIS displays frustration in the article against “liberal journalists” who “would like you to believe that we do what we do because we’re simply monsters...” They lament the fact that their mujahideen, Muslims waging jihad, “have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations” but that it is too “politically incorrect” for the media to reveal the truth. To set the record straight, ISIS clarifies “to the West - yet again” why they fight us. They provide six reasons in this article:

1.Because we do not believe in Islamic monotheism.
2.Because we do not obey Allah.
3.Because of the atheists among us.
4.Because of our crimes against the religion of Islam.
5.Because of our crimes against Muslims.
6.Because of our invasion of Muslim lands.

While discussing the first reason, ISIS says, “just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by... living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims.”


...
Their point is clear: They kill us primarily because we are not Muslim. Leaving no room for doubt, the article goes on to say, “Although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.... [O]ur primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”

---

s0nicfan posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Islamic terrorism is a result of Western policies that destabilized Muslim countries, not Islam itself.

That is objectively untrue, by their own volition:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11793770

The magazine’s editors answer this question in what appears to be the issue’s centerpiece article, “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You”: Hating sinners and killing disbelievers is also part of fitrah. According to ISIS, it is the Muslim’s duty to kill sinners and non-Muslims.

ISIS displays frustration in the article against “liberal journalists” who “would like you to believe that we do what we do because we’re simply monsters...” They lament the fact that their mujahideen, Muslims waging jihad, “have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations” but that it is too “politically incorrect” for the media to reveal the truth. To set the record straight, ISIS clarifies “to the West - yet again” why they fight us. They provide six reasons in this article:

1.Because we do not believe in Islamic monotheism.
2.Because we do not obey Allah.
3.Because of the atheists among us.
4.Because of our crimes against the religion of Islam.
5.Because of our crimes against Muslims.
6.Because of our invasion of Muslim lands.

While discussing the first reason, ISIS says, “just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by... living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims.”


...
Their point is clear: They kill us primarily because we are not Muslim. Leaving no room for doubt, the article goes on to say, “Although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.... [O]ur primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.”

Again, it's a tool they use to promote their interests, i.e. political dominance in the Middle East. It's certainly not objectively untrue, and I believe that, again, they are using the religion as a tool to promote primarily political [not religious] interests.

If it was religious, then why are most of the people that they kill Muslims?

Fam_Fam posted...

If it was religious, then why are most of the people that they kill Muslims?

Because they're not Muslim enough. Or sunni shia sectarian conflict which has been going on literally since Muhammad died.

I mean, isis literally says they kill us because we're not followers. Everything else is just western speculation.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

If it was religious, then why are most of the people that they kill Muslims?

Because they're not Muslim enough. Or sunni shia sectarian conflict which has been going on literally since Muhammad died.

I mean, isis literally says they kill us because we're not followers. Everything else is just western speculation.

However, those people ARE muslims, and they DO embrace Islam, just a version with some changes. So it's disingenuous to say its Muslim vs. non-Muslim. ISIS lies, you can't take everything they say at face value (same thing with any government / group). They murder opposition forces in order to exert dominance in the region and to control the resources / politics of the region.

There IS tons of intra-religion violence, and ISIS is a major perpetrator of it. They are not just fighting non-believers, as they state their mission is. It's again, a ruse in order to gain political power, and Western violence in the Middle East is what helps fuel them in gaining more recruits.

People are like yeah, the West are assholes to Muslims in the Middle East! And they aren't wrong about that. ISIS uses that anger in order to bolster their numbers and promote their own interests. Note that ISIS leadership arent the ones killing themselves. They recruit these angry peopel and send them to their deaths/arrests while they get power at home.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8kZ3HfeqtA
---

How are people still dumb enough to fall for globalism?
---

Fam_Fam posted...

Islamic terrorism is a result of Western policies that destabilized Muslim countries, not Islam itself.

ppl still believe this nonsense?

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Islamic terrorism is a result of Western policies that destabilized Muslim countries, not Islam itself.

ppl still believe this nonsense?

People who don't think the world existed before 1980, maybe.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Islamic terrorism is a result of Western policies that destabilized Muslim countries, not Islam itself.

ppl still believe this nonsense?

i should correct myself, its not ENTIRELY islam itself. Islam has some issues (namely the issue of it being more likely to be taken literally, which is very problematic), but that's also something that can be changed over time (as it has with other religions). The West has certainly done things to let extremists gain influence in the middle east, which promotes the extreme forms of Islam which are very damaging in both the Middle East and the west.

So, I think the West needs to modify its behaviors to limit these organizations power, and I think Islam needs to modernize. However, the West's policies on the whole have created a conflict with Islamists which push it further to the extreme. Islam will continue to have problems until its is more moderated in general to adjust to today's world.

Fam_Fam posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Islamic terrorism is a result of Western policies that destabilized Muslim countries, not Islam itself.

ppl still believe this nonsense?

i should correct myself, its not ENTIRELY islam itself. Islam has some issues (namely the issue of it being more likely to be taken literally, which is very problematic), but that's also something that can be changed over time (as it has with other religions). The West has certainly done things to let extremists gain influence in the middle east, which promotes the extreme forms of Islam which are very damaging in both the Middle East and the west.

So, I think the West needs to modify its behaviors to limit these organizations power, and I think Islam needs to modernize. However, the West's policies on the whole have created a conflict with Islamists which push it further to the extreme. Islam will continue to have problems until its is more moderated in general to adjust to today's world.

You're right. But that leaves us with a very difficult choice. Do we continue to allow Muslims from the middle East into the West? Knowing that they will commit terrorist attacks or at the very least reject our values out of spite? Or do we have an immigration ban from those countries until the issues are settled?

Tricky tricky stuff. We're between a rock and a hard place.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

Islamic terrorism is a result of Western policies that destabilized Muslim countries, not Islam itself.

ppl still believe this nonsense?

i should correct myself, its not ENTIRELY islam itself. Islam has some issues (namely the issue of it being more likely to be taken literally, which is very problematic), but that's also something that can be changed over time (as it has with other religions). The West has certainly done things to let extremists gain influence in the middle east, which promotes the extreme forms of Islam which are very damaging in both the Middle East and the west.

So, I think the West needs to modify its behaviors to limit these organizations power, and I think Islam needs to modernize. However, the West's policies on the whole have created a conflict with Islamists which push it further to the extreme. Islam will continue to have problems until its is more moderated in general to adjust to today's world.

You're right. But that leaves us with a very difficult choice. Do we continue to allow Muslims from the middle East into the West? Knowing that they will commit terrorist attacks or at the very least reject our values out of spite? Or do we have an immigration ban from those countries until the issues are settled?

Tricky tricky stuff. We're between a rock and a hard place.

I think that's unfair. I think in the Middle East there are a whole range of people. Some of whom are extremists, but most are not. The difficult problem is filtering them out. I think there's middle ground between open borders and an outright ban, and I think we find our solution somewhere in there.

Troll topic.

I guess we should follow in Western Europe's footsteps XD

Globalism is idealism at its core, and we all know idealism kills. Globalism lost and nationalism won.
---

--kresnik-- posted...

Globalism lost and nationalism won.

@--kresnik--

Explain?
---

It's better than the alternative
---