Washington & Jefferson Statue Get Pulled Down

[Cisairse]

Hardly. I support destruction of the lie that these historical figures were gods among men that everyone should aspire to be. That's a dangerous idea, and "cultural myths" like these are cancerous. They must be fought against.

What a load of rubbish. Nobody worships these men as gods, as well you know. And what culture has not set its foundation in myth of one kind or another? You seek to destroy culture itself, whether you recognise it or not, and that is the most dangerous, cancerous idea of all.

Fahran is literally saying the opposite from you but okay.

[Kragholm Free States]

What a load of rubbish. Nobody worships these men as gods, as well you know. And what culture has not set its foundation in myth of one kind or another? You seek to destroy culture itself, whether you recognise it or not, and that is the most dangerous, cancerous idea of all.

Fahran is literally saying the opposite from you but okay.

That is because Fahran and I are not actually the same person, unless I am very much mistaken.

[Kowani]

Nationalism inexorably leads to evil.

Nationalism has led to much good as well.

Yet always to evil in the end.

[Kragholm Free States]

Nationalism has led to much good as well.

Yet always to evil in the end.

Define 'the end'.

[Kowani]

Yet always to evil in the end.

Define 'the end'.

I would characterize it as the fullest expression of itself, when whatever nationalist group or undercurrent that exists not only seizes power, but does so with a mandate strong enough to where they no longer have to moderate their actions to avoid an undesirable response.

[Fahran]

Fahran is literally saying the opposite from you but okay.

How so? I'm not encouraging worship of these men as deities.

[Fahran]

I would characterize it as the fullest expression of itself, when whatever nationalist group or undercurrent that exists not only seizes power, but does so with a mandate strong enough to where they no longer have to moderate their actions to avoid an undesirable response.

Nationalism, even fully realized, is a good deal more nuanced than this interpretation suggests and nationalism takes a wide variety of forms. The American Indian Movement often had and often still has quasi-nationalist goals - such as the acknowledgement of treaty rights, the revitalization of indigenous cultures, and the strengthening of parallel indigenous institutions. As another, more controversial, example, the founding of Israel created a nation-state that protected Jewish people from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East from the pogroms that had been, at times, customary habits of their neighbors - even in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Both of these instances present us with a narrative of national liberation by oppressed (formerly oppressed in the case of the Jews) nations.

[Kragholm Free States]

Define 'the end'.

I would characterize it as the fullest expression of itself, when whatever nationalist group or undercurrent that exists not only seizes power, but does so with a mandate strong enough to where they no longer have to moderate their actions to avoid an undesirable response.

What group of any persuasion has seized power with a mandate strong enough that they need not moderate their actions without causing evil to follow? Is it unique to nationalism? Furthermore, why must nationalism require a group to seize power in such a fashion?

[Kowani]

I would characterize it as the fullest expression of itself, when whatever nationalist group or undercurrent that exists not only seizes power, but does so with a mandate strong enough to where they no longer have to moderate their actions to avoid an undesirable response.

Nationalism, even fully realized, is a good deal more nuanced than this interpretation suggests and nationalism takes a wide variety of forms. The American Indian Movement often had and often still has quasi-nationalist goals - such as the acknowledgement of treaty rights, the revitalization of indigenous cultures, and the strengthening of parallel indigenous institutions.

Yes, because the material status of Native Americans prevents them from developing a fully realized nationalism, though such a movement may have the intellectual and cultural underpinnings that, if given time, would develop into either an exclusionary or a supremacist nationalism, though the path is not foreseeable.

As another, more controversial, example, the founding of Israel created a nation-state that protected Jewish people from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East from the pogroms that had been, at times, customary habits of their neighbors - even in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Both of these instances present us with a narrative of national liberation by oppressed (formerly oppressed in the case of the Jews) nations.

…A state formed as respite from the horrors of nationalism, which has developed into an
ethno-nationalist one, fighting against an ethno-nationalist movement, both of whom commit human rights abuses on the daily was your “good” example?

[Proctopeo]

There are many types of nationalism. Are we referring to ethnic, cultural, civic, or something else here?

[Kowani]

I would characterize it as the fullest expression of itself, when whatever nationalist group or undercurrent that exists not only seizes power, but does so with a mandate strong enough to where they no longer have to moderate their actions to avoid an undesirable response.

What group of any persuasion has seized power with a mandate strong enough that they need not moderate their actions without causing evil to follow? Is it unique to nationalism?

Yes and no. Nationalism is one of the few ideologies that no matter how benign it may first appear, invariably expresses itself as supremacist given enough time. It starts, typically, as calls first for autonomy or self determination, which seem innocuous. But given enough time, unless either national identity is subsumed or the currents which push nationalistic thinking are dealt with, it builds upon the blocks that were first established, the underlying rationalization that pushed those same calls for autonomy. For a nationalist argument to hold any sense, there must be something “special“, or “unique” about a people. Fair enough, anthropology would say that there is cultural differences, so this seems a reasonable thing to say. Yet there is a hidden underpinning, a third column-not only is the “other” different, it must be inferior. If they were equal, or superior, any argument for separation would hold no water-it would be meaningless. This third column is never addressed, rarely spoken-when people do voice it, they are branded as lunatics, xenophobes, racists, whatever term you choose. Yet this idea of superiority is a natural consequence of the idea of difference that exists in all forms of nationalism. It is this superiority ideal, never voiced, though always present that makes nationalism into a poison.

Furthermore, why must nationalism require a group to seize power in such a fashion?

I said nothing about the manner in which power was seized-

[Kowani]

There are many types of nationalism. Are we referring to ethnic, cultural, civic, or something else here?

They all have the same poison within, some are merely less arbitrary in what said poison is.

[Diarcesia]

Define 'the end'.

I would characterize it as the fullest expression of itself, when whatever nationalist group or undercurrent that exists not only seizes power, but does so with a mandate strong enough to where they no longer have to moderate their actions to avoid an undesirable response.

It's right in Kowani's sig, quoted here for future reference.

If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us – you are merely occupiers.
If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us – borders must not be changed.
If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us – it is the cradle of our nation.
If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must enjoy the right of self-determination.
If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us – they must be protected against your oppression.
All of the above rules apply to us, but not to you.
Our dream of greatness is historical necessity, yours is fascism.

[Luminesa]

I feel like pointing out that the method of record keeping now involves a great deal of duplication that the Puritans just didn't have, as duplicated as they may have been.

That's true. And it's technology we've really only developed in the last 20 years or so, which is pretty amazing. It's such a tiny blip in history, the internet.

[Kowani]

I feel like pointing out that the method of record keeping now involves a great deal of duplication that the Puritans just didn't have, as duplicated as they may have been.

That's true. And it's technology we've really only developed in the last 20 years or so, which is pretty amazing. It's such a tiny blip in history, the internet.

Oh, absolutely. And even in those twenty years, it’s revolutionized the world.
Mind you, for me, who is younger than the Internet, this is the natural state of affairs.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Admittedly, this seems fairly unimportant in the grand scheme. It’s not like they blew up Mount Rushmore or shelled the Statue of Liberty or nuked the Washington Monument. It’s a few statues in a random city or something. Who cares?

[Fahran]

Admittedly, this seems fairly unimportant in the grand scheme. It’s not like they blew up Mount Rushmore or shelled the Statue of Liberty or nuked the Washington Monument. It’s a few statues in a random city or something. Who cares?

You nip these destructive trends in the bud. You don't allow them to grow like weeds across the flower bed. There are quite a few ideological and practical weeds that ought to have been nipped sooner. Trumpism for instance, though some of them might bring some good eventually.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Admittedly, this seems fairly unimportant in the grand scheme. It’s not like they blew up Mount Rushmore or shelled the Statue of Liberty or nuked the Washington Monument. It’s a few statues in a random city or something. Who cares?

You nip these destructive trends in the bud. You don't allow them to grow like weeds across the flower bed.

I don’t disagree, but what are we, a few random people, going to do to stop them? I’m not sure what laws they are violating or crimes they are committing, except vandalism. Technically, there isn’t much we CAN do.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Admittedly, this seems fairly unimportant in the grand scheme. It’s not like they blew up Mount Rushmore or shelled the Statue of Liberty or nuked the Washington Monument. It’s a few statues in a random city or something. Who cares?

You nip these destructive trends in the bud. You don't allow them to grow like weeds across the flower bed. There are quite a few ideological and practical weeds that ought to have been nipped sooner. Trumpism for instance, though some of them might bring some good eventually.

Leftists are clever here in the west. They slowly increment towards cultural destruction.

[West Leas Oros 2]

You nip these destructive trends in the bud. You don't allow them to grow like weeds across the flower bed. There are quite a few ideological and practical weeds that ought to have been nipped sooner. Trumpism for instance, though some of them might bring some good eventually.

Leftists are clever here in the west. They slowly increment towards cultural destruction.

Hey, leave us out of it.

[Fahran]

…A state formed as respite from the horrors of nationalism, which has developed into an
ethno-nationalist one, fighting against an ethno-nationalist movement, both of whom commit human rights abuses on the daily was your “good” example?

It has certainly been good for the nation in question compared to the alternative that predominated even in the United States and Soviet Union prior to its inception. Mind you, I don't believe that a casual acquaintance with atrocities and cruelties is good for a population's collective psyche. It makes people calloused and apathetic to suffering when their own benefit is highlighted starkly. But, to the community in question, it is preferable to being on the receiving end of such abuse, albeit more quietly and in a "non-nationalist" state.

[Fahran]

I don’t disagree, but what are we, a few random people, going to do to stop them? I’m not sure what laws they are violating or crimes they are committing, except vandalism. Technically, there isn’t much we CAN do.

Every act has consequences that flow from it like so many ripples in a pond. That's part of why Russell Kirk and T. S. Eliot weren't overly concerned with presidential campaigns and exercising state power. Perchik in Fiddler on the Roof erred when he proclaimed that everything was political. Man's nature may be political and social but man is shaped by culture and social factors. It is enough to dismantle ideologies, piece by piece. It is enough to cast a stone into the pond.

I should clarify what I meant when I referenced weeds since there seems to have been some confusion. I'm not talking of people. We're embodiments of ideological, cultural, and political trends when we act in this way. A specific person might matter but, for innumerable reasons, we shouldn't nip a person. We should nip the toxic ideas and ideologies they espouse.

[Kowani]

You nip these destructive trends in the bud. You don't allow them to grow like weeds across the flower bed. There are quite a few ideological and practical weeds that ought to have been nipped sooner. Trumpism for instance, though some of them might bring some good eventually.

Leftists are clever here in the west. They slowly increment towards cultural destructionreformation.

342qqqq

…A state formed as respite from the horrors of nationalism, which has developed into an
ethno-nationalist one, fighting against an ethno-nationalist movement, both of whom commit human rights abuses on the daily was your “good” example?

It has certainly been good for the nation in question compared to the alternative that predominated even in the United States and Soviet Union prior to its inception. Mind you, I don't believe that a casual acquaintance with atrocities and cruelties is good for a population's collective psyche. It makes people calloused and apathetic to suffering when their own benefit is highlighted starkly. But, to the community in question, it is preferable to being on the receiving end of such abuse, albeit more quietly and in a "non-nationalist" state.

That...you don't seem to understand my point.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Leftists are clever here in the west. They slowly increment towards cultural destructionreformation.

342qqqq

It has certainly been good for the nation in question compared to the alternative that predominated even in the United States and Soviet Union prior to its inception. Mind you, I don't believe that a casual acquaintance with atrocities and cruelties is good for a population's collective psyche. It makes people calloused and apathetic to suffering when their own benefit is highlighted starkly. But, to the community in question, it is preferable to being on the receiving end of such abuse, albeit more quietly and in a "non-nationalist" state.

That...don't seem to understand my point.

Call it what you will. It still is destructive.

[Kowani]

Call it what you will. It still is destructive.

All cultural evolution is destructive.