NATION

PASSWORD

Globalists: how do we respond to resurgent nationalism?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Pope Joan
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19500
Founded: Mar 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Pope Joan » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:27 pm

I oppose globalism economically; it dilutes the effect of our environmental and labor laws.
"Life is difficult".

-M. Scott Peck

User avatar
Militant Costco
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1030
Founded: Feb 06, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Militant Costco » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:32 pm

Pope Joan wrote:I oppose globalism economically; it dilutes the effect of our environmental and labor laws.

But for some countries, failing to adopt globalism will make environmental and labor laws useless, since there won't be any industry left to regulate.
Costco Wholesale
NSG Puppet

Nothing says democracy like 2 packs of 48 rolls of toilet paper!

User avatar
Chan Island
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6534
Founded: Nov 26, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Chan Island » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:40 pm

Conserative Morality wrote:
Yugoslav Memes wrote:"It's not time yet" is an answer too

"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.


That's inspiring as hell. Sigged.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=513597&p=39401766#p39401766
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19942
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Alvecia » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:45 pm

Republic of the Cristo wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Again, I disagree.


You can't have a club without there being outsiders.

I don't think "clubs" are an appropriate analogy
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Lashary
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Feb 06, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Lashary » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:48 pm

With great love & respect from Pakistan,
I Aam very delighted to be member of WA and looking forward to learn & give ideas for better tomorrow!

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53383
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Greed and Death » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:00 pm

Neoliberia wrote:
The Texan Union wrote:A combination between nationalism and individualism would be great.

Well except that it doesn't make sense.

Globalism is individualist. It's all about individual rights over arbitrary nationstates and the restrictions they impose.

Until we start talking about economic freedom. Suddenly refusing to buy insurance becomes the most anti social thing possible. Well you know what screw that.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Sanctissima
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8486
Founded: Jul 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanctissima » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:17 pm

Neu Leonstein wrote:
Sanctissima wrote:"Human" is not a cultural identity. If you wanted to create a global federation that would last, you'd also need to create a global cultural identity that would go along with it.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. We all tell ourselves narratives about who we are, why we do what we do and so on. For most people, something about how they understand their national heritage is part of that narrative. It is for me too.

But that doesn't have to translate into anything more than that. There is no need to go from that personal narrative to a political system. I can happily say that I was born in Germany, and that my approach to life (including to politics) is influenced by where and how I grew up and the history of Germans as a people. But I've spent half my life in other places, don't really know that many Germans anymore besides family and certainly don't feel the need to have my identity validated by being surrounded by Germans. I can be who I am just fine while surrounded by people with different nationalities (and, to a degree, different personal narratives altogether).

I think that's the fundamental, psychological, divide between what I think of as globalists and nationalists. If you get your narrative and the validation thereof internally, or at least from behaviours that aren't nation-specific*, then it doesn't bug you that much where you live and who else lives there. If your narrative is in some sense externally validated and gets a big part of its meaning to you from being shared with the people around you, then I suppose you would feel somehow out of place if you weren't surrounded by people of your own "kind". And if that is true for a lot of people, and those people react with discomfort, anger or even authoritarian politics, then we've got a problem. Two different ways of how people understand themselves, which can't both be accommodated at the same time.

The 21st century, with this whole new scale of interconnectivity between different parts of the world, shows this up in stark contrast. I'm not really interested in arguing about the economics of globalisation at this point... they've been shown to be irrelevant to the political debate. I'm interested in how we can deal with a situation in which some proportion x of the world wants to experience the whole world, pick a place to make their lives regardless of national boundaries, and some proportion (1-x) wants to keep their corner of the world the way they know it and stop too many new arrivals from changing it. Right now we are doing a fantastically shitty job of reconciling these... (1-x) is hitting out by cheering policies of unnecessarily vindictive cruelty, and x is going into an impotent rage about those same policies while offering little to address the concerns of the (1-x) besides "suck it up". So I'm interested in a better solution and what that might look like.


* like, I could say that I am a coffee snob hipster and like to surround myself with other coffee snob hipsters... but I can do that in Sydney, or in Singapore, or in London, or in Austin - nationality is not that important


Such a loose system of affiliation can only last for so long if implemented. Your own country was non-existent barely 150 years ago. There were Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons and many other cultural groups, but no Germans. It wasn't until a unified empire was forced upon them that a fully-fledged German identity developed. This identity is why, even though the empire was destroyed after the Great War, the country remained at least mostly intact under the Weimar Republic, rather than being divided into numerous smaller states. The same is true of the situation post-WWII.

The simple truth is, without a unifying cultural identity, no global federation would last for very long. It would suffer the same fate of the EU, that is to say major internal strife and gradual break-up. Just as there is no overarching European cultural identity, there is no overarching human one, so for either system to survive such identities must be created.

User avatar
Seraven
Senator
 
Posts: 3570
Founded: Jun 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Seraven » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:12 pm

Minzerland II wrote:
Seraven wrote:
Guess we should totally ignore America's hispanic culture, asian culture, even african culture, right?

You realise they're tearing one another apart, right? America is tearing itself apart.
Conserative Morality wrote:Ignore them.

No, really. Don't entertain their delusions. They imagine themselves on the winning side for the moment. Let them celebrate. Let them show the public a taste of what they actually want to do. And let the public recoil from the actual consequences of a less-connected less-free world.

That is quite the prediction.


To be honest, I'm pretty much has this sort of happiness because of America tearing itself apart.

Then again, while I know the consequences of such tears, I don't have much sympathy with America. Perhaps it is a karma for what they did in the past.
Copper can change as its quality went down.
Gold can't change, for its quality never went down.
The Alma Mater wrote:
Seraven wrote:I know right! Whites enslaved the natives, they killed them, they converted them forcibly, they acted like a better human beings than the Muslims.

An excellent example of why allowing unrestricted immigration of people with a very different culture might not be the best idea ever :P

User avatar
Neu Leonstein
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5771
Founded: Oct 23, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Neu Leonstein » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:11 am

Sanctissima wrote:Such a loose system of affiliation can only last for so long if implemented. Your own country was non-existent barely 150 years ago. There were Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons and many other cultural groups, but no Germans. It wasn't until a unified empire was forced upon them that a fully-fledged German identity developed. This identity is why, even though the empire was destroyed after the Great War, the country remained at least mostly intact under the Weimar Republic, rather than being divided into numerous smaller states. The same is true of the situation post-WWII.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You say there was no unifying national identity pre-1871 (or maybe 1848). I would dispute that in this particular case, but if you're right, then how did Germany become a thing at all? Isn't the answer that a group identity was formed after the political change, and proved strong enough to last?

The point is that humans love to join tribes. We all do it, all the time. We literally attach ourselves to tribes based on people in coloured shirts kicking a ball. It makes a primitive kind of sense, it's what helped us survive the steppes of Africa.

But because we are so super keen to form tribes based on just about anything, there is no reason that the primary tribe has to be the nation. Aside from all the tribal allegiances that most people consider more important than the nation they belong to already, it is also possible to form strong identities based on little more than political philosophy. Think of the United States. When the first settlers arrived, even just those coming from England, they didn't have much in common. But 200-odd years later, a shared commitment to disliking taxes and Republican radicalism was enough to form what turned out to be a lasting national project. And that's not even beginning to count settlers from everywhere else (French, Spanish, Chinese... lots and lots of African slaves obviously - and ultimately even the surviving Native Americans) who found that they liked the same philosophy and took part in it.

The simple truth is, without a unifying cultural identity, no global federation would last for very long. It would suffer the same fate of the EU, that is to say major internal strife and gradual break-up. Just as there is no overarching European cultural identity, there is no overarching human one, so for either system to survive such identities must be created.

The political philosophy behind cosmopolitan governance and lifestyle already exists. Lots and lots of people who consider national boundaries from a practical perspective (i.e. inconvenient barriers in their lives) already exist. I mean, go to any decent university with a globally recognised name and look around the student body. Or like half the population of cities like New York or London. Or Davos. The US was not founded on a lot more than that.
“Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.”
~ Thomas Paine

Economic Left/Right: 2.25 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33
Time zone: GMT+10 (Melbourne), working full time.

User avatar
Sanctissima
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8486
Founded: Jul 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanctissima » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:57 am

Neu Leonstein wrote:
Sanctissima wrote:Such a loose system of affiliation can only last for so long if implemented. Your own country was non-existent barely 150 years ago. There were Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons and many other cultural groups, but no Germans. It wasn't until a unified empire was forced upon them that a fully-fledged German identity developed. This identity is why, even though the empire was destroyed after the Great War, the country remained at least mostly intact under the Weimar Republic, rather than being divided into numerous smaller states. The same is true of the situation post-WWII.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You say there was no unifying national identity pre-1871 (or maybe 1848). I would dispute that in this particular case, but if you're right, then how did Germany become a thing at all? Isn't the answer that a group identity was formed after the political change, and proved strong enough to last?

The point is that humans love to join tribes. We all do it, all the time. We literally attach ourselves to tribes based on people in coloured shirts kicking a ball. It makes a primitive kind of sense, it's what helped us survive the steppes of Africa.

But because we are so super keen to form tribes based on just about anything, there is no reason that the primary tribe has to be the nation. Aside from all the tribal allegiances that most people consider more important than the nation they belong to already, it is also possible to form strong identities based on little more than political philosophy. Think of the United States. When the first settlers arrived, even just those coming from England, they didn't have much in common. But 200-odd years later, a shared commitment to disliking taxes and Republican radicalism was enough to form what turned out to be a lasting national project. And that's not even beginning to count settlers from everywhere else (French, Spanish, Chinese... lots and lots of African slaves obviously - and ultimately even the surviving Native Americans) who found that they liked the same philosophy and took part in it.

The simple truth is, without a unifying cultural identity, no global federation would last for very long. It would suffer the same fate of the EU, that is to say major internal strife and gradual break-up. Just as there is no overarching European cultural identity, there is no overarching human one, so for either system to survive such identities must be created.

The political philosophy behind cosmopolitan governance and lifestyle already exists. Lots and lots of people who consider national boundaries from a practical perspective (i.e. inconvenient barriers in their lives) already exist. I mean, go to any decent university with a globally recognised name and look around the student body. Or like half the population of cities like New York or London. Or Davos. The US was not founded on a lot more than that.


I'm not contradicting myself. It takes a concerted effort to establish a cultural identity in the short-term (i.e: several decades). Germany exists today despite having lost two world wars precisely because a concerted effort was made to establish a German culture. You can thank Bismarck for that. The Unites States, in contrast, made very little effort to properly establish an American cultural identity, so it is true that such an identity can gradually develop on its own over time. It's worth noting, however, that due to this lack of a concerted effort to establish an American identity, the country was, on several occasions, on the precipice of not existing at all (War of 1812, Civil War, etc.).

What you and other posters are essentially advocating is a type of global federation that would go down the same route as the early United States. I assure you that the odds of such a federation surviving would be very, very low. Least of all because, when push would come to shove, I really doubt the leadership of such a federation would have the same willpower as that of the early US presidents. Would you be willing to fight a civil war to keep your federation together? Would you be willing to damn popular sovereignty and force your federation upon unwilling nations? Would you be willing to trample over human rights and even murder political dissidents to preserve the stability of your federation?

If your answer to any of these questions is no, then your federation would not survive.

User avatar
Neu Leonstein
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5771
Founded: Oct 23, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Neu Leonstein » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:29 pm

Sanctissima wrote:I'm not contradicting myself. It takes a concerted effort to establish a cultural identity in the short-term (i.e: several decades). Germany exists today despite having lost two world wars precisely because a concerted effort was made to establish a German culture. You can thank Bismarck for that.

Well, like I said, I don't think your characterisation of German history is right. But that's beside the point.

The Unites States, in contrast, made very little effort to properly establish an American cultural identity, so it is true that such an identity can gradually develop on its own over time. It's worth noting, however, that due to this lack of a concerted effort to establish an American identity, the country was, on several occasions, on the precipice of not existing at all (War of 1812, Civil War, etc.).

That is true - though only the civil war is relevant for our purposes. And I would argue that both sides still thought of themselves as American and their actions true to the intentions of the Founding Fathers... they just disagreed on what that meant.

What you and other posters are essentially advocating is a type of global federation that would go down the same route as the early United States. I assure you that the odds of such a federation surviving would be very, very low. Least of all because, when push would come to shove, I really doubt the leadership of such a federation would have the same willpower as that of the early US presidents. Would you be willing to fight a civil war to keep your federation together? Would you be willing to damn popular sovereignty and force your federation upon unwilling nations? Would you be willing to trample over human rights and even murder political dissidents to preserve the stability of your federation?

If your answer to any of these questions is no, then your federation would not survive.

Yeah, but now you've just come back to the OP. Your argument now is not that a globalist political identity cannot exist, or that it cannot be used as the foundation of a political project. You're now arguing that the political project is unstable, regardless of any supranational culture or identity that it is based on. Which could be true, sure, but then it is always true of any political project. So it becomes a question of how we can pragmatically overcome these problems and ensure that a sufficient number of people comes along for the ride to make it work. I.e. how can we respond to people who value their nationalist identities so much that they would want to disrupt a world that has brought more peace, more cultural exchange and more people lifted out of abject poverty than ever before? I don't know the answer to that question - that's why I wrote the OP.
“Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.”
~ Thomas Paine

Economic Left/Right: 2.25 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33
Time zone: GMT+10 (Melbourne), working full time.

User avatar
Republic of the Cristo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12261
Founded: Apr 16, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Cristo » Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:58 pm

Alvecia wrote:
Republic of the Cristo wrote:
You can't have a club without there being outsiders.

I don't think "clubs" are an appropriate analogy


I think it is.

In order for a group or, tribe, to be formed, you must adopt and believe in certain principles or be of a certain disposition. If you are not in line with a groups principles or their disposition, then you are not welcome.

With this in mind, not everyone can be apart of everything. Tribes or groups are naturally exclusive to some extent and simply will not allow some people into their fold.
Orthodox Christian, Nationalist, Reactionary, Stoic


(2 Kings 2:23-25): you won't be dissappointed

User avatar
PaNTuXIa
Senator
 
Posts: 3538
Founded: Feb 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby PaNTuXIa » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:04 pm

Nationalism is inevitable. Globalism is, by its nature, an unfavorable system. Nationalism doesn't mean Nazi Germany, it means a return to Napoleonic and Roman political systems.
I support Open Borders for Israel.
United Marxist Nations wrote:Anime has ruined my life.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:
PaNTuXIa wrote:>swedish
>conservatism

Islamic nations tend to be right wing.

User avatar
Internationalist Bastard
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24520
Founded: Aug 09, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Internationalist Bastard » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:19 pm

PaNTuXIa wrote:Nationalism is inevitable. Globalism is, by its nature, an unfavorable system. Nationalism doesn't mean Nazi Germany, it means a return to Napoleonic and Roman political systems.

The systems that led to major war mongering and imperialism?
Call me Alex, I insist
I am a girl, damnit
Slut Pride. So like, real talk, I’m a porn actress. We’re not all bimbos. I do not give out my information or videos to avoid conflict with site policy. I’m happy to talk about the industry or my thoughts on the career but I will not be showing you any goodies. Sorry
“Whatever you are, be a good one” Abe Lincoln

User avatar
PaNTuXIa
Senator
 
Posts: 3538
Founded: Feb 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby PaNTuXIa » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:20 pm

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
PaNTuXIa wrote:Nationalism is inevitable. Globalism is, by its nature, an unfavorable system. Nationalism doesn't mean Nazi Germany, it means a return to Napoleonic and Roman political systems.

The systems that led to major war mongering and imperialism?

War is natural. There is no way to prevent war - if anything, internationalism promotes war more than nationalism and isolationism.
I support Open Borders for Israel.
United Marxist Nations wrote:Anime has ruined my life.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:
PaNTuXIa wrote:>swedish
>conservatism

Islamic nations tend to be right wing.

User avatar
Internationalist Bastard
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24520
Founded: Aug 09, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Internationalist Bastard » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:22 pm

PaNTuXIa wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:The systems that led to major war mongering and imperialism?

War is natural. There is no way to prevent war - if anything, internationalism promotes war more than nationalism and isolationism.

Is it though? How many wars were fought in interests of a nation, rqther then the interests of the world as a whole?
Call me Alex, I insist
I am a girl, damnit
Slut Pride. So like, real talk, I’m a porn actress. We’re not all bimbos. I do not give out my information or videos to avoid conflict with site policy. I’m happy to talk about the industry or my thoughts on the career but I will not be showing you any goodies. Sorry
“Whatever you are, be a good one” Abe Lincoln

User avatar
Republic of the Cristo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12261
Founded: Apr 16, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Cristo » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:27 pm

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
PaNTuXIa wrote:War is natural. There is no way to prevent war - if anything, internationalism promotes war more than nationalism and isolationism.

Is it though? How many wars were fought in interests of a nation, rqther then the interests of the world as a whole?


No war has been fought for the world as a whole. Non ever.

But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.
Orthodox Christian, Nationalist, Reactionary, Stoic


(2 Kings 2:23-25): you won't be dissappointed

User avatar
Kerbodine
Diplomat
 
Posts: 616
Founded: Dec 21, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Kerbodine » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:30 pm

Community Values wrote:
Kerbodine wrote:I'm by no means a globalist, but to the globalists here (since I think this is a very open discussion): don't be too overly optimistic about the future being more 'pro-globalist'. The youngest generation shows some very interesting trends, many of which are non-globalist.


Interesting trends that are found where? I mean, I live in the most Republican town in my state, and I can say a lot about the political trends in my school.
Bit late, but in general Gen Z is more conservative in a lot of ways than the generations before. (For example, church attendance is at like 40%, while even Baby Boomers were only like 25% when they were that age, and the two in between were maybe 20%)

Wikipedia has a page on Gen Z, including basic trends; not a bad place to glimpse at it.

User avatar
Internationalist Bastard
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24520
Founded: Aug 09, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Internationalist Bastard » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:33 pm

Republic of the Cristo wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Is it though? How many wars were fought in interests of a nation, rqther then the interests of the world as a whole?


No war has been fought for the world as a whole. Non ever.

But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.

What, because some nation goes to war for trade interests?
Call me Alex, I insist
I am a girl, damnit
Slut Pride. So like, real talk, I’m a porn actress. We’re not all bimbos. I do not give out my information or videos to avoid conflict with site policy. I’m happy to talk about the industry or my thoughts on the career but I will not be showing you any goodies. Sorry
“Whatever you are, be a good one” Abe Lincoln

User avatar
Neu Leonstein
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5771
Founded: Oct 23, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Neu Leonstein » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:34 pm

Republic of the Cristo wrote:But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.

That's a big enough claim to deserve more than one line, no?
“Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.”
~ Thomas Paine

Economic Left/Right: 2.25 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33
Time zone: GMT+10 (Melbourne), working full time.

User avatar
Republic of the Cristo
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12261
Founded: Apr 16, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Republic of the Cristo » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:35 pm

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Republic of the Cristo wrote:
No war has been fought for the world as a whole. Non ever.

But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.

What, because some nation goes to war for trade interests?


Trade, to spread democracy, Hegemony, etc.

All fall in line with the globalist expansion.
Orthodox Christian, Nationalist, Reactionary, Stoic


(2 Kings 2:23-25): you won't be dissappointed

User avatar
Conserative Morality
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 76676
Founded: Aug 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Conserative Morality » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:36 pm

Kerbodine wrote:Bit late, but in general Gen Z is more conservative in a lot of ways than the generations before. (For example, church attendance is at like 40%, while even Baby Boomers were only like 25% when they were that age, and the two in between were maybe 20%)

Wikipedia has a page on Gen Z, including basic trends; not a bad place to glimpse at it.
[/quote]
'Gen Z' is an incredibly inconsistently categorized and young demographic. Also, I'd call into question those church attendance numbers.
Last edited by Conserative Morality on Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
On the hate train. Choo choo, bitches. Bi-Polar. Proud Crypto-Fascist and Turbo Progressive. Dirty Étatist. Lowly Humanities Major. NSG's Best Liberal.
Caesar and Imperator of RWDT
Got a blog up again. || An NS Writing Discussion

User avatar
PaNTuXIa
Senator
 
Posts: 3538
Founded: Feb 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby PaNTuXIa » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:44 pm

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
PaNTuXIa wrote:War is natural. There is no way to prevent war - if anything, internationalism promotes war more than nationalism and isolationism.

Is it though? How many wars were fought in interests of a nation, rqther then the interests of the world as a whole?

War is primarily motivated by corporate interests, trade interests, and foreign influence on government, such as the War in Iraq being fought for Big Oil and Israel, or the Vietnam War being fought due to communism being a threat to businesses influence on government. If these were removed, and an isolationist foreign policy were pursued, war would be scarce.
Last edited by PaNTuXIa on Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I support Open Borders for Israel.
United Marxist Nations wrote:Anime has ruined my life.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:
PaNTuXIa wrote:>swedish
>conservatism

Islamic nations tend to be right wing.

User avatar
Internationalist Bastard
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24520
Founded: Aug 09, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Internationalist Bastard » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:47 pm

Republic of the Cristo wrote:
Internationalist Bastard wrote:What, because some nation goes to war for trade interests?


Trade, to spread democracy, Hegemony, etc.

All fall in line with the globalist expansion.

No, all of those are goals on expanding national power. Globalism may have been an excuse for things say, America installing pro American democracies, but it's no more globalist then invading a country for oil
Call me Alex, I insist
I am a girl, damnit
Slut Pride. So like, real talk, I’m a porn actress. We’re not all bimbos. I do not give out my information or videos to avoid conflict with site policy. I’m happy to talk about the industry or my thoughts on the career but I will not be showing you any goodies. Sorry
“Whatever you are, be a good one” Abe Lincoln

User avatar
PaNTuXIa
Senator
 
Posts: 3538
Founded: Feb 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby PaNTuXIa » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:48 pm

Internationalist Bastard wrote:
Republic of the Cristo wrote:
Trade, to spread democracy, Hegemony, etc.

All fall in line with the globalist expansion.

No, all of those are goals on expanding national power. Globalism may have been an excuse for things say, America installing pro American democracies, but it's no more globalist then invading a country for oil

The Iraq War was motivated by the Israel and the Oil lobby, which, under a nationalist government, would've been far less likely to happen.
Last edited by PaNTuXIa on Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I support Open Borders for Israel.
United Marxist Nations wrote:Anime has ruined my life.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:
PaNTuXIa wrote:>swedish
>conservatism

Islamic nations tend to be right wing.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Allinburg, Blattusordia, Ethel mermania, Fahran, Fartsniffage, Google [Bot], Hispida, Loeje, Saiwania, Salus Maior, Sordhau, The Jamesian Republic

Advertisement

Remove ads