Nationalism

[End]

I like it from an economical perspective because it provokes competition. Zero-sum games are usually the cause of the biggest bursts in productivity. From the social perspective, certain types of nationalism are the proverbial gravity that hinders maximal social unification ("complete" social unification is of course impossible, hence the reason why I used the word "maximal" instead). Globalization has been a tax on nationalism, and sure technology is still advancing, but I would argue it is not growing at a good rate. It is the complacency granted to us by globalization that makes us "unmotivated" to go out there and accomplish because there is no enemy to triumph over.

My Solution:
I think if the economic superpower (we currently don't have one as the global economy slows down) of the next decade takes initiative with threatening sanctions to denuclearize the world (including themselves) we will go back fighting one another provoking nations all over to "pick up the pace." What happens to social unification? Nations will begin to realize to beat their competitors they need "diversified staff." As much stick as America gets for being nationalistic, the country's core principles I think are rather pragmatic. For them nationalism in principle was not primarily based on geographical convenience of someone's birthplace, but rather the unified effort of equals with individual talents, but sympathy for the same ideology. What does this mean? It means it doesn't matter whether you were born in a America, it matters whether you are willing the accept the American ideology. This does not diminish social unification; instead it promotes because they don't care about your background, but rather, what you have to offer as an individual. When there is a culture that promotes intensive realization of one's potential it directly contributes to the country's power. The problem is many nationalists go against the intentions of these founding principles that made America so great in the first place. Anyways, to conclude, major countries in this ideal world of mine would trend towards their own version of America, upping global productivity while lowering local discrimination. Of course it would produce more conflict, but all great successes are built upon the blood, sweat, tears of the competitors and the indefinite misery of the losers. I believe this is the world we live in, and the further we accept it, the further we will go.

Disclaimer#1: I am not American.
Disclaimer#2: My ideal world setting is extremely unlikely to happen. I don't think we will be getting rid of nukes any time soon.

I would add in one final thing about the "American" model you seem to advocate for (and I do as well if we agree on this). Up until recently, it involved Christianity. That is, there was a "common" religion/public set of values assumed. Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, etc. are not the same "religion" strictly speaking, but if you asked any of them who Jesus was they'd all give you the same answer more or less. He is the Christ, the redeemer, only son of God, savior of all who will but merely accept his love and mercy and renounce Satan in turn.

Now that it does not? Well, problems. Easily predictable problems.

And as for the nukes. Benjamin Franklin put it best: "Those who pound their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords." I too wish we'd all just turn that immense store of fissile material into fuel rods for power plants and sources of power/propulsion for interstellar spaceships but Ben wasn't wrong. Hence, it'll never happen sadly. If you got a gun but I got a nuke I win, period. Wish it wasn't this way but it is. Our sentiments line up perfectly in this instance. The loser will suffer and there is no way to eliminate that suffering. Accept it and move on for we can't change that no matter how much we may wish to.

[Metamorph]

I would add in one final thing about the "American" model you seem to advocate for (and I do as well if we agree on this). Up until recently, it involved Christianity. That is, there was a "common" religion/public set of values assumed. Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, etc. are not the same "religion" strictly speaking, but if you asked any of them who Jesus was they'd all give you the same answer more or less. He is the Christ, the redeemer, only son of God, savior of all who will but merely accept his love and mercy and renounce Satan in turn.

Now that it does not? Well, problems. Easily predictable problems.

And as for the nukes. Benjamin Franklin put it best: "Those who pound their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords." I too wish we'd all just turn that immense store of fissile material into fuel rods for power plants and sources of power/propulsion for interstellar spaceships but Ben wasn't wrong. Hence, it'll never happen sadly. If you got a gun but I got a nuke I win, period. Wish it wasn't this way but it is. Our sentiments line up perfectly in this instance. The loser will suffer and there is no way to eliminate that suffering. Accept it and move on for we can't change that no matter how much we may wish to.

The "Founding Fathers" were deists, and most Americans today are still Christians. America was founded on reason, not Jesus (and also not Satan.) Please leave your paranoia bubble.

[End]

The "Founding Fathers" were deists, and most Americans today are still Christians. America was founded on reason, not Jesus (and also not Satan.) Please leave your paranoia bubble.

That's some major league Bullshit. America was indeed founded on reason, but as I've pointed out time and again, reason leads to truth, and as "God" is the ultimate truth, true reason leads to God. I'd highly recommend you look into the actual writings of those "founders" as well. Trace the evolution of their beliefs. At one point in time in their lives you'd have been right about them. However, that's not how it usually ends. Most all of them would pass for believers in the end even if they had some "hot takes" in their earlier years you may well love to repeat to yourself.

Many saints were once prolific sinners, a fact I hope you come to understand the significance of one day.

I'd also challenge your assertion that most of us Americans are Christian. I mean, fuck, challenge randos (especially those with "danger hair" as I like to put it) to a Witch Test out of the blue. See how many fail it hardcore. It's gonna be a lot lemme tell ya. The "majority" belong to the cult of pop culture, the cult of death, and... a cult I can't name in polite company.

My little challenge of administering "witch tests" will depend on your location pretty heavily I'll admit. Urban areas, the coasts, etc. Yeah, you'll scarcely find a soul who'll pass. In fly over country/rural areas? You'll find few failures. I live in the latter, I am quite pleased that I am right about this especially among my own blood relatives (who are not all Catholic BTW). Do it my dude, and please report factual data back to me. My models and theories are always in need of additional data .

[Metamorph]

That's some major league Bullshit. America was indeed founded on reason, but as I've pointed out time and again, reason leads to truth, and as "God" is the ultimate truth, true reason leads to God. I'd highly recommend you look into the actual writings of those "founders" as well. Trace the evolution of their beliefs. At one point in time in their lives you'd have been right about them. However, that's not how it usually ends. Most all of them would pass for believers in the end even if they had some "hot takes" in their earlier years you may well love to repeat to yourself.

Many saints were once prolific sinners, a fact I hope you come to understand the significance of one day.

I'd also challenge your assertion that most of us Americans are Christian. I mean, fuck, challenge randos (especially those with "danger hair" as I like to put it) to a Witch Test out of the blue. See how many fail it hardcore. It's gonna be a lot lemme tell ya. The "majority" belong to the cult of pop culture, the cult of death, and... a cult I can't name in polite company.

My little challenge of administering "witch tests" will depend on your location pretty heavily I'll admit. Urban areas, the coasts, etc. Yeah, you'll scarcely find a soul who'll pass. In fly over country/rural areas? You'll find few failures. I live in the latter, I am quite pleased that I am right about this especially among my own blood relatives (who are not all Catholic BTW). Do it my dude, and please report factual data back to me. My models and theories are always in need of additional data .

Most anyone passes as a better believer in truth than you. I would agree that truth is God, but you can't separate that from moronic identity politics, and now you pick on brightly-dyed hair colors and rock music as being of the Devil in an act of ultimate unoriginality. And you still name-drop tons of second-class Lutheran and evangelical philosophers like that makes you a good Catholic. Excuse me, LOL.

[End]

Most anyone passes as a better believer in truth than you. I would agree that truth is God, but you can't separate that from moronic identity politics, and now you pick on brightly-dyed hair colors and rock music as being of the Devil in an act of ultimate unoriginality. And you still name-drop tons of second-class Lutheran and evangelical philosophers like that makes you a good Catholic. Excuse me, LOL.

My dude, whatever would make you think I hate "rock" music or think it is of the devil? On the contrary, you'll find no other religion more in tune with things like "heavy metal" than Christianity (though the Norse faith is a close second). I mean, it may be blasphemous of me to point this out, but it's hard to get more metal than "nailing your God to a stick" as it were. Also, just because a person hates me, my faith, etc. It does not mean they don't have a point to make or that they cannot be correct on a given point or even beat me in an argument. Humility is a virtue after all, one many in this world are sorely in need of learning how to exercise I'd say.

Ya got me on the "danger hairs" though. That's a big ass red flag for me and the few times I acted to confirm boy howdy did I get my confirmation. The fact that they fitted the other aspects of the "stereotype" just further sold it. Show me a supermodel or body builder with blue hair or the like because I've yet to see one. It was universally sported by ugly women and soyboys/hipsters with SJW beliefs in my experience (bonus: many of them also had problem glasses to boot/complete the stereotype). Other fun fact I recognized, "Victim Mentality" and "Oppression Olympics" are not metal, hence why I've yet to meet or see an SJW metalhead.

As a final point of observation, the first person to resort with conviction to ad hominems like you just did, in a philosophical context, has indirectly admitted defeat. I'll admit I may have gotten carried away here and there but if we were speaking face to face I'd have immediately apologized as I know that fact and can immediately spot/sense it when I'm communicating verbally with others. Weaknesses of text communication, you don't get to hear tone of voice, body language, facial expression, the look in their eyes, etc. To put this another way, you should have just posted quotes from the founders that were undeniably deist to make me look like a fool here. That was the winning play. Instead? You riddle me with insults, derision, and contempt. Come now, you can do better than this I know you can. I have faith in you, if nothing else, as a competent adversary. Please, live up to my expectations. You have no idea how hard it is to find good enemies/opponents in these areas .

Back on topic though. Can you have a coherent "nation" without a common faith/public set of beliefs agreed upon and thus socially enforced by most all members? I argue not. Care to contest this or do we finally agree on something?

[Metamorph]

My dude, whatever would make you think I hate "rock" music or think it is of the devil? On the contrary, you'll find no other religion more in tune with things like "heavy metal" than Christianity (though the Norse faith is a close second). I mean, it may be blasphemous of me to point this out, but it's hard to get more metal than "nailing your God to a stick" as it were. Also, just because a person hates me, my faith, etc. It does not mean they don't have a point to make or that they cannot be correct on a given point or even beat me in an argument. Humility is a virtue after all, one many in this world are sorely in need of learning how to exercise I'd say.

Ya got me on the "danger hairs" though. That's a big ass red flag for me and the few times I acted to confirm boy howdy did I get my confirmation. The fact that they fitted the other aspects of the "stereotype" just further sold it. Show me a supermodel or body builder with blue hair or the like because I've yet to see one. It was universally sported by ugly women and soyboys/hipsters with SJW beliefs in my experience (bonus: many of them also had problem glasses to boot/complete the stereotype). Other fun fact I recognized, "Victim Mentality" and "Oppression Olympics" are not metal, hence why I've yet to meet or see an SJW metalhead.

As a final point of observation, the first person to resort with conviction to ad hominems like you just did, in a philosophical context, has indirectly admitted defeat. I'll admit I may have gotten carried away here and there but if we were speaking face to face I'd have immediately apologized as I know that fact and can immediately spot/sense it when I'm communicating verbally with others. Weaknesses of text communication, you don't get to hear tone of voice, body language, facial expression, the look in their eyes, etc. To put this another way, you should have just posted quotes from the founders that were undeniably deist to make me look like a fool here. That was the winning play. Instead? You riddle me with insults, derision, and contempt. Come now, you can do better than this I know you can. I have faith in you, if nothing else, as a competent adversary. Please, live up to my expectations .

Back on topic though. Can you have a coherent "nation" without a common faith/public set of beliefs agreed upon and thus socially enforced by most all members? I argue not. Care to contest this or do we finally agree on something?

Those are not "ad hominems" but me pointing out you aren't actually debating my points and are seemingly willfully misrepresenting them. Have a wonderfully paranoid and obtuse day! Please read some actual Catholic philosophy instead of terrible Lutheran Kierkegaard, and make Catholics look smart instead of dumb in the future!

[End]

Those are not "ad hominems" but me pointing out you aren't actually debating my points and are seemingly willfully misrepresenting them. Have a wonderfully paranoid and obtuse day! Please read some actual Catholic philosophy instead of terrible Lutheran Kierkegaard, and make Catholics look smart instead of dumb in the future!

Ever read the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas? Please do try to refute him. Your ilk have been trying for centuries. They've all failed.

Please, point out how I've resorted to fallacies in arguing against you by the way. Again, this is a weakness in text communication. Show me where I've unjustly and, quite frankly, stupidly given myself over to my emotions without admitting that I did upon later investigation. I seek to beat you in rational debate so utterly that you relinquish you smug sense of superiority. Morality and Myth trump fact and reason in most every sense. Ought beats Is every time that conflict comes up. You do not seem to accept this fact for some reason. I must ask why.