When a nation becomes nationalistic, it will probably dig deeper into identity till they also have regionalism. But it doesn't end there, because after nationalism and regionalism, suddenly tribalism comes, too. Consequently, the country will be divided to such an extent that no one cares about anyone but themselves, which is pretty much the same as anarchy. So, for me, it seems that nationalism is a tunnel bound to go in disarray.

Ok. Thanks for letting us know.

Wtf I love nationalism now

^
Then you also love both world wars, the crusades and 90% of the wars in world history.

Who doesn't?

Who likes war? Asking that on a site called Warzone. Being fascinated by it does not mean liking to fight in a random war. Right now.

Homogeneous societies which usually take the form of nations, are the most cooperative, trustworthy and successful.

If people have no shared history, race, culture, or language, only materialism and "utility" i.e. pleasure over pain, comfort, "security" will unite them. Multicultural "societies" are fragmented and atomized by default since money and verbiage create only superficial unity and any cohesive organic group that becomes successful will dominate the society: only genuine cooperation elevates people.

Nationalism has a longer and broader history than the Third Reich which is an extreme, purist example. You approach the problem of Nationalism from the standpoint that, the Nation is created artificially and this prompts a domino effect of further divisions because muh purity promotes greed or whatever.

The Nation already exists, it lingers waiting for a state to give it life or to be eroded away by stronger Nations with stronger values. If a nation so called collapses into regionalism it was never a nation to begin with.

@OP I could turn the whole argument upside down and it still works.

When a nation moves from localism to regionalism to nationalism to stop the bickering among regions then they will also keep progressing until they want to stop the bickering among nations leading to globalism and one world government.

Its the same stupid slippery slope argument just in reverse.

Read the Federalist Papers. The writers were trying to argue for the merging of 13 former colonial governments under the articles of confederation into a single country. The papers perfectly argue why nationalism is the perfect blend of regionalism and globalism and why the United States should be 1 country and not 13 countries.

Edited 12/19/2017 03:33:05

It should be 2 countries: America and America Minor (Florida)

The Federalist papers are a good study into political theory.

My thoughts on them are more interested in how rule by precedent is better than incorporating peoples' ideals spontaneously. It would be ridiculous to characterize the Federalists as 'traditionalists" or "nationalists" in the modern sense, but you can imagine a strong unbroken civic tradition with the Federalists as the sort of original solar heroes, passing down their sturdy grip on the Nation through laws; this could last for millennia. A system functionally limited purely to consensus among ethnic European elites, absent from bourgeois moralism or partisanism and an empowered masses to mobilize to those tunes, could preserve within its sphere practically any sort of human quality that Liberalism has allowed to be erased over the centuries.

Good think i love anarchy

Homogeneous societies which usually take the form of nations, are the most cooperative, trustworthy and successful.

If people have no shared history, race, culture, or language...

Nigga Scotland's 96% white but nobody tells each other "I'm glad we share a skin colour, knowledge of William Wallace, easy access to haggis, and the ability to speak English". Considering your level of human interaction, you might assume that this is the type of shite people talk about, but people care about films, sport, music, and telly, not their race, or fucking history lol.

oi mate ye ken who robert the bruce is?

aye a do

WOA WE CANNAE FAW OOT THE NOO AM YER MATE

normal people talk about history and not telly!!!!!!!!!!

This is pretty easily refuted by the fact that something can exist in the subconscious / doesn't have to be articulated all the time. And history just means the people have social connections passed down generationally; actual knowledge of history is irrelevant here.

Also I think your "he has social problems hurr" which is the only thing you can fall back on, lets face it ‐ having neither the intelligence nor the ego security to argue in any capacity, is just a meme at this point. Stay frustrated lol.

anarchy is a very interesting system.
nationalism seems to have a basis in ignorance and intolerance.
if a society develops to uphold anarchist ideals, it looks to me that there would be way less problems than in a nationalist region.
I'm certainly gonna read up on the subject as I think it is as relevant as ever.
chomsky has a book that I've been eyeing up called On Anarchy.
don't believe the negative hype! ejikate ursel.

>anarchy is a system

It isn't a system it's an ideal that could theoretically guide a system, but you can't point to any working examples of anarchy that were sustained for generations. Best I can come up with is tribal people but that would fall prey to your "ignorance" and "intolerance" standards.

>nationalism seems to have a basis in ignorance and intolerance

Not on a grand scale; you have some people that really want to be a part of a foreign nation that get excluded, but from a pure utilitarian standpoint (which is your standpoint I assume) nationalism is the best system. Immigrants from poor countries will flow into rich countries to take advantage of the welfare state and better conditions, but they will simply degrade conditions for both their home country in leaving, and their host country by wearing down infrastructure and derailing social cohesion. If people in the third world aren't capable of producing a functional modern state, why should they displace people who build modern states? And whats worse, the internationalists don't even want to educate immigrants in being productive because that'd be "racist". Internationalism is unwinding civilization.

>chomsky has a book that I've been eyeing up called On Anarchy.

"Avram Noam Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928, in the East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[24] His father was William "Zev" Chomsky, an Ashkenazi Jew originally from Ukraine who had fled to the United States in 1913."

Hmm

This is pretty easily refuted by the fact that something can exist in the subconscious / doesn't have to be articulated all the time.

Huh, interesting seeing you argue that subconscious biases are a major force in society. They might have a bearing, (I'm sure you've read the study "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal"), but is it reasonable to say that they dictate a majority of our social interaction?

people have social connections passed down generationally

Right, so ideally people stick within their own "nation", or "tribe", or if you will, "clan". See, Scotland used to be divided into clans; they'd fight each other, only breed amongst themselves, massacre each other, but eventually we learnt how to look beyond the world in such a simple manner. Today, most Scots could probably tell you what clan they're a part of, but they don't give a fuck, when it comes to interacting with people. As the world becomes more globalised, why can't the same thing happen, on a global scale? if your logic was applied throughout history, a MacDonald and a Campbell would've always ideally self-segregated to the point where people only interact with those who they share social connections from generations that aren't their own.

nationalism leads to individualism. hot take.

War is good.

(ooga booga)

THE BEAUTY OF JIHAD
THE SPEED OF THE CRUSADE
THE ACCELERATION OF DECAY