What is your attitude toward nationalism? How is this view seen in your country?
Nationalism
What is your attitude toward nationalism? How is this view seen in your country?
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
My country was founded as a multicultural entity: a loose federation between parts of the British Empire that didn't join the American revolution, and that had little in common with each other WRT. culture, religion, or even language.
Multiculturalism is baked in, which makes assimilationist nationalism harder for our conservatives to justify. But immigrants do successfully assimilate into the broader liberal culture. And there is a tendency to accept multiculturalism itself as the country's primary, connecting 'grand narrative'.
Militaristic nationalism is very weak to non-existent. But there is a lot of patriotism, which is something different.
Last edited by xerx; 12-17-2021 at 01:44 AM.
Attitudes toward nationalism in my country are fairly polarized. On the one hand you have a generally older demographic remembering a time long gone when Britain was on top of the world and longing to restore it, on the other hand you have people that are pretty disconnected from "British" as a cultural identity because, between American media and different people/things from commonwealth countries, the British identity for younger generations has kind of diluted and there's little reason to "love your country" or "be proud of your country" when your country is effectively 20 other countries stacked on top of each other and wearing a trenchcoat.
I fall squarely in box 2. I find patriotism and nationalism thoroughly confusing and it just seems to me to be a propoganda tactic to let people project their individual values onto "my country" despite the fact they may not like the government... or the people... or the landmass... BUT HEY AT LEAST THEY REALLY LOVE THE FLAG RIGHT?! THAT COUNTS AS LOVING THE COUNTRY!
I hate it, my country is no more important than others. its glorified tribalism. usually nationalists are self absorbed, with no identity or higher purpose in life, often feelings of inferiority due to restricted cognitive abilities, poverty .they make it about asserting themeslves over someone else thats their proof of being significant, the concept of difference in power externalized in reality. a way for this, nationalism gives them a sense of identity, purpose, belonging and power when backed by a bunch of people with the same values. nationalists here are often the football fans who tend to give beatings to those of a different faction, including simple foreigners, for being inferior of a different country that dare "laugh" at "us", exploit "us" or dare enjoy things from "our" culture. one reason ppl dont like coming here, and dont like taking ppl from my country.
they want to lead their stupid wars again bc their life has no intrinsic value, they drag everyone else into their bs, under the pretense if they dont do as they want they are parasyites. Tell them how to live, while seeing someone not wanting to be opressed by them as "restricting" THEIR freedom. You are either with me or against me mentality.
i think nationalism is rather prevalent in my country, bc old ppl stay, on top of the young with liberal values moving somewhere else, low birth rate.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
lmfao as an american, nationalism is stupid as hell. i think it’s used to indoctrinate the populace from a young age in order to provide a steady stream of people for the military in case their “keep them poor, stupid, and desperate so that they’ll go for the education + benefits” tactic doesn’t work well enough.
i can see loving the place you were born/live but i am firmly against a love of something that doesn’t recognize it’s flaws. and that goes for anything. the people who “bleed red, white, and blue” are hopelessly close minded because they believe the USA can do no wrong. there’s no point in that idealization and it infuriates me because there’s so much that could be better. if there’s no change then there’s no progress. the united states hasn’t been #1 for a very long time no matter how loud those idiots yell that it is. and to tote around such a big statement as a country is just begging to be made fun of and targeted. no one likes a braggart
also it makes these people act so dumb when it comes to traveling. like how do you expect everyone to know english please rent a brain for the trip at the very least i’m begging you. it’s bad enough that you do it to people here but in other countries too??
and all of this ^ is without even mentioning how this “legacy” was built on the backs of disadvantaged people and still is while treating them like shit all the while
either way, this perspective of mine gets me dismissed as ungrateful and it got me in trouble in school growing up for stupid shit like not saying the pledge
Its a great thing! Patriotic pride in your own nation. Subsidierity. Yes, that, vs. one world dictatorship.
In 2022: a rise in self-ruled, free nations! Prophets predict a fall of the Chinese Communist Party! Imagine! China as a free nation!
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Nationalism is terrible. I agree with those who see it as contrary to long-term human survival, particularly the threat of nuclear bombs and climate change.
I agree. I like to imagine a world in which nobody wastes time and energy (not to mention human lives) on protecting arbitrary borders and some arbitrary "sense of belonging."Originally Posted by Subteigh
Also, I am German and quite happy that I was raised to see nationalism as a dangerous thing (except for soccer). In 22 years of living in the U.S., I have not gotten used to American nationalism.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Some say yea, some say nay. Excepting the far extremes, in one direction or the other, the truth has to in fact be one or the other: nationalism is basically good, or basically not good. Yet, we have strong opinions both ways displayed in this thread.
Prophets say we live in a time of confusion about what is right and what is wrong. Evil is good, good is bad. But the wonderful news is that God is going to soon make it ALL very clear to us. We will all know! So the disunity we see in this thread, in this forum, in our families, and everywhere in our lives, will be GONE. Instead we will have clarity and peace about what is right and worng, and we will live in unity and harmony and peace. Isn't that amazing? Only God could do that!
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of claims God is sending something "soon," when "soon" apparently means "at least two millennia."
Wow! Revelation 22:12! And I JUST hit send on a post to Adam Strange about the significance of seeing those numbers 222!
Wow, you can't make this stuff up! I think this is going to be a big year for you, and for Adam too. I am praying for it. God answers prayers. I pray that Adam will have faith, and that your faith will be confirmed and become firm this year.
2022 IS going to be amazing and I think we are going to see Jesus, not yet in the way many are expecting soon, not the 2nd coming in the clouds with trumpets for the End Times, but in a way we know it is Him. He is already appearing to people in dreams in unprecedented numbers, so I think in that sort of way. Visitations. So one way or another, I believe when 2022 is over, people will say, "Ï have seen God". I do believe He is coming soon, in this very Revelations 22:12 way, to bring recompense, to repay us for what we have done. I believe that means that the truly evil will see recompense, and there will be rewards to the heroicly faithful and there will just be God's graces poured out on all (but not the truly deeply unrepentant evil ones).
____
Speaking of the book of Revelation, just as a point of interest, I recently learned something very interesting. My husband mentioned just last month that some people say that the Apostle John is still alive, and there is some scripture and tradition to back that up. I had never heard that before and I am not proud to say my reaction was just to get extremely annoyed at him for bringing up such an innane topic! I was pretty closed minded, and I am usually not, but that just sounded ridiculous. So I shut down that topic immediately! (And I love that my husband never resents me for behaving badly.)
Well last week I watched a prophetic short on youtube Elijah Clips. Not a prophet I follow but associated with Elijah Streams (that produces Elijah Clips) but I trust Elijah Streams and decided to watch this short one. Well this guy tells of a prophetic dream he had of the Apostle John and said he believes (or was told in the dream?) that even though this sounds crazy, that the Apostle John is still alive! He lives (all the time? some of the time?) in a cave somewhere near Greece. John is going to show himself to us near the End Times right when we need to understand his Revelation prophecies - he will clarify and explain them to us!
I could not believe I was hearing this same shocking thing in less than a month after I first heard it (I have heard a lot about my faith over the years and never this), and this time, it occured to me: why not? Maybe it is true. When Jesus told Peter about his end-of-life, Peter asked, "What about John?"and Jesus said, "What is it to you if he lives until the last day?"
Omigosh, I JUST looked it up for exact quote and chapter and verse and get this: We are talking John 21: 22!
I am not kidding. Wow.
" When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22
Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."
23
Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die.
Wow.
Yes, so, when I heard it the 2nd time I did not shut down. I just thought: God can do anything He wants to do! God's ways are not our ways. Nothing is impossible with God, and we sure need help figuring out Revelation. There are SO MANY intepretations! How amazing, after so many volumes of expert erudite exegesis that do not leave anyone with any confidence, how amazing would it be to have John show up to explain it - just when we really needed to know?
And there we have more proof that the end times are not here yet: if it were, we would have had John already here explaining Revelations for us!
My best understanding from what I have litened to is we are about to make a sudden and wonderful entrance to the "Kingdom Age": a glorious period of peace, prosperity, wellness and joy before the End Times, the time Jesus prayed for, when Christians have the unity Jesus prayed for, and when "Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven."
And wow, these 222's tonight while writing to you and Adam. I think this is going to be a big, good year for you two!
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 12-20-2021 at 06:25 AM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
@Eliza Thomason
If John's living near Greece now, do you expect he's improved his grasp of Greek in the past 2,000 years? If so, do you think he'd be willing to release a revised version of Revelation written with decent grammar?
My husband studied the Bible in Greek (as well as Hebrew and Latin) and he doesnt remember a particular grammer problem. But he says he wouldn't be able to say if a grammer issue would have been St. John's or St. Jerome's or the translators. I suspect the latter!
For me St. John being alive is just a mystery I am willing to consideer. Its a remote possiblility; it just fascinates me that it is a possililty, because, with God all things are possibble. A great mysterious grace if it is true! To explain his book of Revelation is a great reason.
If you really want to know the answer to your grammer question, ask him. We know from examples of various Saints like Padre Pio, for example, that bi-location is a gift God gives to some living Saints.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
https://ministryofstudy.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/the-greek-of-revelation/
The Greek of Revelation is fairly bad; there are a number of outright grammatical mistakes in the text, and at the very least non-standard/odd uses of prepositions, if you don't want to also count those as mistakes. Some Christians try to derive certain meaning from these errors, which the link above mentions.
“It is a curious thing that God learned Greek when he wished to turn author- and that he did not learn it better."
Now Nietzsche studied philology so he is more of an authority on this matter than I as I cannot read Attic Greek, but from those I know who could, they would say 'grammatical mistakes" in the old Bible is severely understating the fact. Of course, what is to be expected from a work of literature written by semi-literate carpenters? Now I do have many misgivings with the Christians and their subversion of morality and the iconoclasm of the past was certainly necessary to tear down the old dogmatisms of the Church. However I cannot help but say that critics ought to be careful of putting too much blame on the Christ figure. The institutionalization of a following always ends in disaster. People often forget the message of the religion, and get lost in the scripture. This is only a consequence of human sheepishness and stupidity, which already existed without Christianity. The latter was only it's expression.
I can easily distinguish between many principle forms of nationalism. Without a clear explanation from the OP on what is precisely meant by 'nationalism' then the subsequent replies can only make shots in the dark with the poster's subjective interpretation of what 'nationalism' is. For example, notice how the two posters who I will now quote differ in their interpretation of nationalism and give a completely unrelated critique of what is supposed to be a singular phenomenon if we were to take the OP at face value.
In the years before the Italian risorgimento the Tuscans, Florentines, Venetians, Sardinians, Sicilians and many other groups were a 'loose federation' of feudal states that had little in common in culture and language, save for perhaps the Catholic faith. The division among Italians as a group of people persist in certain parts of Italy even today. It was precisely the Nationalism of figures such as Garibaldi and Mazzini which was able to unite the Italian peninsula, a 'multicultural entity' into a single state.
Now this poster writes
Now let us contrast this with the events of the French Revolution in which the third estate 'asserted' their 'power, identity, purpose' over the first and second estate. The third estate, particularly the bourgeoise felt 'exploited' by the monarchy and the clergy. As a result they responded in force and successfully overthrew their 'oppressor'. Did the bourgeoise feel that their rulers were inferior? Certainly. The French Revolution and the enlightenment that preceded it declared war against anything and everything it considered passéist remnant of the old monarchies from dress to political organization. Thus we had the fertile ground in which the new liberal values were planted. The individual in the above post does not strike me as a royalist reactionary, their polemicizing against abstract 'nationalism' without expressing in concrete terms what exactly they are arguing against, only ends with them looking like a madman railing against phantasms.
So to your question OP, on my "attitudes towards nationalism" I must ask you what is precisely you mean by 'nationalism'. If your idea of 'nationalism' is impolite language or hoodlums at a ball game then I suggest you open up a history book.
A new concept which breeds instability.
ἀταραξία
If you read back to my original post we aren't operating on my definition of nationalism, the fact that I didn't give one was intentional. My question was what your attitude to nationalism was and how its viewed in your country, this gives adequate cultural and historical context to the question. But as you said I didn't give you anything to rail against and you decided to fight against windmills.
It's not hard to supply your own definition of nationalism, if you are having trouble you can look it up online rather than being obtuse.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Supplying a dictionary definition of nationalism is akin to giving one for the concept: 'art movement'. Each one is particular to it's historical epoch and possesses a unique spirit which differentiates itself from all others. To put it all under a single umbrella does a disservice to anything meriting a qualitative analysis. There is no general 'nationalism', just as there is no general 'art movement'. I am not railing against windmills, I am railing against your vague post so that this thread can be steered towards discussing tangible elements of different 'nationalisms' rather than treating it as a monolith.
Capitalism will defeat nationalism.
Interesting take since, especially in the current climate, nationalism and capitalism in the West tend to sit in the same ideological glob.
eveyrthing is genera as everything is what gives context to everything else. ppl unify in a group to abuse others and protect themselves, based on belonging in that group. thats consistent with what i said and hwat the other person u quoted said, which country was unified still under a nation of diverse (meaning many) people. most nations are diverse, i dont think its possible to be any other way, since everyone's mixed, humans have travelled alot, and its a lot of ground to cover. unified nation to protect itself, the people in it and oppress others. besides in ur previous post u already showcased 2 different (yet similar) nationalisms. the french revolution was not to assert identity and purpose, but take it from an oppressor. it could have been a national movement, as a nation is a loose federation of various people's purpose and identity, but its also practical. just because u form and participate in a nation to handle problems of consciece and justice, doesnt make u a nationalist. thers a difference with me forming a nation to stop someone from oppressing others vs forming one to assert myself on others. just because 2 fight doesn't mean they are both the same. just because u eat, u dont need to call it a "culture" and call it "eatism". thats the difference between participating in a nation and being a nationalist. its a fucking joke. u can rail ppl to ur cause by calling it something fancy and making demons up, without being a "nationalist" yourself.
even forming nations to fuck up other ppl is not nationalism, its nationalsim when u "believe" urs is superior, or believe in the agenda of asserting ur "nation" on others. theres a differnece between the goal being asserting ur nation over others, and between fighting for other kinds, even if thats done by asserting ur nation over others.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
It is far easier than that.
Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty over its homeland to create a nation state. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference, that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics, religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity.
In short; Nationalism is a justification for the state's existence and territorial administration devoid of "God given rights" that impossibilitates imperial states that control territories regardless of the people's ethnic belonging that developed into an ideological trait favoring the ethnicity of a certain territory.
Ethnic diferentiation is an essential form of human organization that can be seen to exist and be a prime factor in social development since the beggining of history.
The only multicultural states that are present in history have been the imperial ones and the empires that put 0 administrative effort on unifying the culture and absorbing the locals into the main ethnicity, be it by intention or by accident, have created tremendous ethnic conflicts in their territories and the ethnic diversity they have furthered is one of the main factors for the said region's instability (The middle east, Pakistan, The balkans or subsaharan Africa...) while the imperial goverments that engaged in nation-building have either survived to this day (China) or have left clean ethnic borders and stable regions (Rome or Spain are good examples).
The idea that states have always been multicultural is a modern invention being imposed over the evident truth in order to justify the massive influx of migrants that goverments of the states classically considered "nation-states" are promoting with the intention of enlarging their short-term GDP (Population levels are essential for economic growth) and mitigating the effects of below-replacement birth rates.
The truth is that to be competitive in the global market and in the geopolitical arena the most important factor is the levels of population, territorial extension... which is why every single institution paints a bad image of nationalism, as it is a threat to the status quo and it's intentional policies directed towards keeping themselves relevant.
All of this will evidently result in the long term destabilization of continents like Europe, that have historically been stable and ethnically-homogeneus except for some parts, in the style of the middle east or other "imperialized" territories, but it doesn't matter, what matters to the factual powers is;
1; The existence of a large population pool to squeeze
2; The "numbers" to fullfill in order to stay on par with other powers.
@RBRS
ur wrong about enthicity and the rest is self contradictory conservative bs. i sound much worse than i intend to lol
nations were innitially multiple cultures that were unified into one culture, that said culture has many aspects, thus its both multicultural and one culture. even language is multiple languages of multiple cultures, hence u have pork and pig.
u sound like my nazi SLE friend who gets angry but can tolerate me bc i show tolerance and respect even if abrasive.
people paint nationalism bad bc its about war domination and opression.
nations change borders ppl wage wars calamities and all the bs happens results yet u somehow manage to only see the west as self destructive with liberal policies but it has always led to this. who worked ppl to losing sense of self and peropetuated replacing the meaningful things in life by rich assholes who make work efficient for the price of life experience. people dont want to live and have more children. japan is a highly nationalistic country revered often by conservatives look how well things go there. war, in the past, through rapes was another way ppl got mixed and different cultures. nationalism is only for ppl who dont care how they live, who want to fight for scraps and sentence multiple children to life of hardship and depravity, for the sake of perpetuating their rancid genes. its nationalists that force others to be nationalists to fight them in the first place. its nationalists that drag others to their level, then blame u for refusing to participate and perpetuate the problems they themselvse caused.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
@VewyScawwyNawcissist I hope you can tell me where's the contradiction or incorrection in my post, I can easily see some with what you say;
1; Culture is cumulative and crysol cultures (mixed from various cultures) can be created through a process of intermixing, yet most cultures that exist today are either a result of separation from the main cultural branch or cumulation, with the rare cases like English culture being the least of all.
2; Nationalism and economic liberalism are usually in contradiction, furthermore, it is absurd to say that the ebil oprezzorz are the people who want a self determining goverments body with autonomy over the national territories of every nation over the ones who want a draconian bureocratic imperial hellhole opressing the different populations and creating social disintegration and endless conflicts over the regions it controls.
Every opressive and destructive state in history has been imperial and supranational without almost a single exception, there's countless examples (From the british empire to the ottomans) and most proper nationalist movements have found themselves in conflict with the higher financial strata of both their home country and foreign states.
The precondition for war on a nationalist state is the fact that territories inhabited by the nation are being opressed by a foreign entity, in comparison with the precondition for war of supranational or internationalist states which is the existence of opposing self-governing states, economic interest (Iraq, Lybia, Syria were destroyed because of opposing Petro-Dollar) among thousands of others demonstrates the point that supranational entities are draconian and destructive over nationalist entities.
They're part of the same ideology because modern conservatism is a patchwork of contradictory beliefs.
Capitalist free trade has led to the export of industrial capacity, eroding national sovereignty in the process. This is called 'globalization' by the Left. It's other name, globalism, was employed only recently by conservatives, stolen by Steven Bannon to criticize a process that his side continues to uphold regardless.
Capitalism's endless pursuit of trendiness and novelty has also eroded traditional ideas and traditional institutions; created the most powerful persuasion mechanisms for the dissemination of sex; and, in the process, uprooted religion beyond the wildest dreams of even the most diehard Marxists.
Nationalism is an impediment to efficient markets, but by god, I live here.
It's not even specifically conservatism. Neoliberalism as a whole has drawn on both aspects to create the modern hellscape.
Everything is not general. You can talk about everything without being general at all. People form into groups for a multiplicity of reasons, and it often does not have to do with either abusing others or protecting themselves. People are capable of abusing people as individuals just fine. Ask yourself why people form social groups in their life. There are shared commonalities among people and they enjoy one another's company. What you say about diversity has nothing to with what I said because again I said in my post that nations which are by your definition 'diverse' came into being through nationalism. The key example I gave was Italy. Protection or oppression is an individual phenomenon, and is only a 'national' phenomenon in so far as the the individuals which constitute the 'nation' wish to engage in these acts. The 'nation' is an abstraction of a particular group of individuals. Groups are created by consciousness. You can group people who are not aware they are 'grouped' just fine.
The French revolution certainly was the emergence in identity and assertion of a new class (bourgeoise) . The republic which emerged was caused by nationalism. Just as the German revolutions of 1848–1849.
I do not know what you bring up 'nationalism' again because I just asserted in my post that you don't know what it is apart from associating it with oppression.
Historically these have both been nationalisms and historically both of these have been done at the same time. Here I invoke Engels:
"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"
This is just your word associations. There is no historical validity to this.
@VewyScawwyNawcissist
Last edited by Anonymous; 12-28-2021 at 02:36 PM. Reason: @'ed VewyScawwyNawcissist
If 'nationalism' is an ideology― the16types.info is also an ideology.
This is precisely what was predicted by Marx.
@xerx
Last edited by Anonymous; 12-28-2021 at 02:43 PM. Reason: @'ed xerx
@None u ignored my saying forming a group for a purpose being called nationalism is the same as saying eating food is eatism.
the term exists to describe something more specific
and less specific in the sense that all those formations that are nationalism are different form each other in various ways but still under the specifics of what nationalism in particular is.
just because historically things were achieved through brainwashing some people into nationalism doesn't mean that everything about it was nationalism.
im only repeating myself with different words for clarification now.
u could have just said what u wanted depending on what u mean by nationalism.
This is just your word associations. There is no historical validity to this.
"history" doesn't define words, we do.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
@VewyScawwyNawcissist
Please use your Ni to piece together why it's fallacious to apply dictionary definitions to complex historical phenomenon.
"I" am not "we" and "we" is not the dictionary.
This is very ironic coming from someone who has Nietzsche in their banner. That quote you have especially.
Last edited by Anonymous; 12-28-2021 at 03:13 PM. Reason: Added "And "we" isn't the dictionary. "
But it is an ideology. Granted, there's more coherent ideologies of which nationalism is a component, but believing that devotion to the nation surpasses devotion to anything else can be an ideology one can adhere to in isolation.
@Teslobo
That is not nationalism. See my other posts in this thread regarding this.
This is ideology. You can call it a value system.
I don't view your other posts as being an adequate response. Political scientists have been bickering over whether nationalism is an ideology unto itself for as long as the word has existed. Most answer yes, some avoid the question entirely and the ones that say it isn't still feel the need to address it in complete isolation (see Andrew Heywood for a prolific example).
@Teslobo
How are my posts inadequate?
Nationalism is a healthy and necessary component for the survival of a nation and people.
in discussing nationalism as a political ideology or force it's important to separate the nationalism of the global south, which was one half of the motive force for independence and self determination [the other motive force being marxism-leninism, sometimes combining and sometimes not] in the century XX, and the nationalism of the post-industrial world like britain, france and the united states - those are substantially different.
as sukarno, one of the great independence leaders said, internationalism and nationalism are flowered in the same garden, it's not possible to have internationalism without the respect between nations and their political bodies as legitimate political organs. in this sense most people [though not all] are today still nationalists, we respect the right of say, the indonesian parliament to make laws for the united-nations defined territory of indonesia, and not say, the world bank or the US congress or the dutch monarchy to make those laws.
where nationalism presents itself in the post-industrial countries today it's exactly as a rebellion against those supranational political organs: in britain against the european union, in the united states under trump against the united nations [see trumps attempts to defund many UN organs], the WTO, and "the rules based international order", and in france against NATO/OTAN [see eric zemmour's campaign]. the post-industrial countries still are the centre of the capital forces that control the world economy and also the mediacomplex - most of western worlds news comes from four news wire agencies centred in NY, London and Paris [AP, Reuters/PA, AFP.]
to the extent that nationalism appears 'nasty' it's because the post-industrial decline and malaise and its associated problems requires someone to blame: someone at the top, ie the supranational organs, and someone at the bottom, ie the refugee and the migrant and often the muslim, and this reflects itself further as a demand for all people in the society to subscribe to the historical glory of the nation. this is especially prevalent in british nationalism which usually wants people to wave the flag, ignore historical atrocities and promote a circle-jerk of historical glories.
but I think nationalism isn't necessarily a negative force, referring back to my first paragraph - and the nationalist critiques of the supranational bodies are quite good ones IMO. in the post-industrial west though, nationalism is a motive force for racism and war and so is generally bad, but this is only because it's a tool of capital to divide workers. most of the nationalistic perspectives come from the same mediaplexes that are owned by extremely wealthy people and operated for the benefit of extremely wealthy people.
perhaps a post-capitalist society in the west could use nationalism as a constructive motive force: most of the time the current media forces, in supporting migration, make economic arguments - we need skilled labour, migrants prop up the health service, etc, and social arguments - diversity is good for its own sake, we now have good food, etc etc, all of which are true but all of which are just plastering arguments over a series of social problems. the correct and constructive manner to use nationalism as a positive force is to point out that human migration is a fact of history, that we all live in this land as a consequence of the movement of historical forces, and since we can't fight it the only way to make our societies better is for everyone to find common ground to co-operate on. but, pessimistically, I doubt this will happen.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM
Because it's mainly just contrarianism without any attempts to substantiate.
@Teslobo
I have substantiated thoroughly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
