Politics Pros and Cons of modern western civilisation

[Seeds]

Yes, because that is what happened as the result of both world wars and why there has been subsequent peace. Europe in 1900 was primarily comprised of multi ethnic empires. By 2000 almost every single ethnicity of Europe had their own nation state.

Peoples who had never before had a nation, like Estonians, suddenly had their very own country.

How do you determine ethnicity and distinguish which is the same and which is different? It seems a pretty big claim to say nearly all ethnicities has their own nation station.

 

[its free real estate]

WW1 had nothing to do with ethnic nationalism

Jfc Gavrilo Princip, after whom the main boulevard in Belgrade is named, was a Serbian nationalist.

How can someone be so historically ignorant and yet so confident of his world view?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Jfc Gavrilo Princip, after whom the main boulevard in Belgrade is named, was a Serbian nationalist.

How can someone be so historically ignorant and yet so confident of his world view?

How do you respond his central point?

Utter bullshit. Europe has not been a conglomeration of ethnically nationalist nation States since the end of WW2. In fact it's been the least nationalist, most liberal and had the most open borders of its history in the past 70 years! Borders have been eroded, starting in 1951 via the Treaty of Rome, and continuing through to the treaty of '92, and via incorporation as the EU.

Literally the only cause of conflict in Europe in the past 70 years has been due to ethnic nationalism/ nationalism. Yugolsavia, Ireland, Basque, Catalonia.

You're the only person I know who has attempted to argue that 'ethnically nationalist insular nation States' are an enabler for peace. Particularly when you cite Europe as an example.

Europe is a glaring example of the exact opposite!

 

[its free real estate]

How do you respond his central point?

What is his central point? The treaty of Rome didn’t open borders, nor did it happen in 1951. He’s retconning what he understands as post Cold War liberalism, and very recent developments, as the basis for the post WW2 settlement. It’s a complete misreading of history.

He also celebrates the recent upswing of multiculturalism in Europe, while bemoaning the return of overt displays of nationalism.

The dots are all laid out for him, he doesn’t want to join them.

 

[Malifice]

What is his central point? The treaty of Rome didn’t open borders, nor did it happen in 1951. He’s retconning what he understands as post Cold War liberalism, and very recent developments, as the basis for the post WW2 settlement. It’s a complete misreading of history.

The dots are all laid out for him, he doesn’t want to join them.

No, Im rejecting the following premise of yours:

'Peace in Europe post WW2 has been due to an increase in ethnic nationalism/ the formation of ethnically 'pure' nation States.'

Europe (post WW2) has been notable due to the absence of ethnic nationalism (barring a few small areas, such as Yugoslavia, Ireland and some parts of Spain) that was rampant prior, and due the increase in open borders, open trade, integration between the member State, and increased migration (both within Europe and from abroad).

I also reject your premise that 'insular ethnic nationalist nation states' promote peace. It's literally the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Ethnic nationalism causes wars, with very few exceptions (in fact; literally none that I can think of; every single time ethnic nationalism rears its ugly head, we wind up with war, killings, genocide and pogroms).

He also celebrates the recent upswing of multiculturalism in Europe, while bemoaning the return of overt displays of nationalism.

People are (and always have been) quick to turn on others who are different to them. I get that. Blame the brown people/ Jews/ Muslims/ Asians/ Slavs/ Africans etc.

Your options are either embrace this phenomenon (and embrace ethnic nationalism) as a solution (see: Nazis) or work towards a more open, liberal and tolerant society where we accept each others differences and work together (open borders, free travel, open trade, increased liberalization) via civic nationalism.

Your solution seems to be 'create a homeland for the white race' and an embrace of ethnic nationalism. Which, seeing as you've been outed in this and other incarnations on this forum as an avowed White nationalist/ supremacist, is rather unsurprising.

Let me ask you the following questions:

1) Do you honestly believe that [closed border, insular, ethnically nationalist] Nation States (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) are desirable?

2) Do you honestly believe that the existence of such 'ethnically pure' Nation States would lead to increased peace?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

I also reject your premise that 'insular ethnic nationalist nation states' promote peace.

They do internally.

 

[Seeds]

What is his central point? The treaty of Rome didn’t open borders, nor did it happen in 1951. He’s retconning what he understands as post Cold War liberalism, and very recent developments, as the basis for the post WW2 settlement. It’s a complete misreading of history.

He also celebrates the recent upswing of multiculturalism in Europe, while bemoaning the return of overt displays of nationalism.

The dots are all laid out for him, he doesn’t want to join them.

You can't argue that a criticism of multicultaralism is it leads to nationalism when your response to nationalism is to embrace it. Nationalism is either a problem or a solution. It can't be one in one situation and the other in a different situation just cos it suits your argument.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

How can WWII be considered a victory of liberalism when the way Britain treated countries like India was anything but liberal? As far as I know, liberalism is about ensuring people have rights and aren't discriminated based on race etc.

Did Britain fulfil that criteria?

 

[Malifice]

They do internally.

Is that true of Nazi Germany? Would you say there was internal 'peace' before they invaded Poland and kicked off the war?

Their first target was a purge of 'non desirables' from the State. Jews, Romani, the disabled, leftists, socialists etc.

They then turned to Austria (because it was full of so called 'ethnic Germans') for 're-unification'. More war. More violence.

And after they invaded and annexed Poland to create 'living space' for Arayan peoples, then what? What happened to the so called 'Untermensch' living in Poland? Massacres and Genocide.

And then the same in France, Russia and elsewhere.

Now, if the same were to be repeated (an ethnic Nationalist party gets in power in Germany again, and shuts the borders) what happens to 'non ethnic Germans'? Who gets it in the neck? What about Austria (which is full of 'ethnic Germans')? Do we not see the exact same ridiculous s**t happening all over again?

Ethnic nationalism is ******* madness. It invariably leads to war, genocide and persecution.

Civic nationalism is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Number37]

Western civilization brought us large scale gambling (casinos) where plebs are convinced that they can outsmart the laws of mathematics despite being incapable of counting to 21.

 

[Malifice]

How can WWII be considered a victory of liberalism when the way Britain treated countries like India was anything but liberal?

Liberalism doesn't say anything about how a liberal Nation State treats other Nation States. Its about the relationship between the State and its own citizens.

The USA has been a liberal Republic for centuries now, and they havent exactly always been nice to other Nation States around the globe have they?

As far as I know, liberalism is about ensuring people have rights and aren't discriminated based on race etc.

No, Liberalism is the relationship between people and the State they belong to. It's a political theory that basically states 'People shall be free from State interference unless that interference is reasonably necessary to protect the liberty of other citizens.'

The Government has no right to tell you what to do, or to interfere in your life, unless they only do so to stop you from messing with other people. A law against theft or murder is OK, as are laws that prohibit you from unfair trade practices, price fixing, racial abuse, harassment etc. A law that dictates 'you must worship this God' (for example) would be illiberal.

See:

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

It stands opposed to Nationalism (a system of government that places the interests of the Nation as the primary concern of the State, and places national interest above individual liberty) and Fundamentalism (a system of government that places the interests of 'God' as the primary concern of the State) and similar doctrines.

A liberal believes that the 'Nation State' is a necessary mechanism for protecting liberty and freedom, but is equally wary such an entity can fall to tyranny. They're big on ensuring the State adheres to the Rule of Law, is accountable to the people via an independent judiciary, and free and open democratic elections, an independent media etc. They're equally big on ensuring no law is passed that imposes an unnecessary restriction on individual freedoms unless that law is reasonably needed to protect those very freedoms.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Liberalism doesn't say anything about how a liberal Nation State treats other Nation States. Its about the relationship between the State and its own citizens.

The USA has been a liberal Republic for centuries now, and they havent exactly always been nice to other Nation States around the globe have they?



No, Liberalism is the relationship between people and the State they belong to. It's a political theory that basically states 'People shall be free from State interference unless that interference is reasonably necessary to protect the liberty of other citizens.'

The Government has no right to tell you what to do, or to interfere in your life, unless they only do so to stop you from messing with other people. A law against theft or murder is OK, as are laws that prohibit you from unfair trade practices, price fixing, racial abuse, harassment etc. A law that dictates 'you must worship this God' (for example) would be illiberal.

See:



https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

It stands opposed to Nationalism (a system of government that places the interests of the Nation as the primary concern of the State, and places national interest above individual liberty) and Fundamentalism (a system of government that places the interests of 'God' as the primary concern of the State) and similar doctrines.

A liberal believes that the 'Nation State' is a necessary mechanism for protecting liberty and freedom, but is equally wary such an entity can fall to tyranny. They're big on ensuring the State adheres to the Rule of Law, is accountable to the people via an independent judiciary, and free and open democratic elections, an independent media etc. They're equally big on ensuring no law is passed that imposes an unnecessary restriction on individual freedoms unless that law is reasonably needed to protect those very freedoms.

Yeah, that was arguably my weakest post on the board yet. I deserve a ban.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Is that true of Nazi Germany? Would you say there was internal 'peace' before they invaded Poland and kicked off the war?

Their first target was a purge of 'non desirables' from the State. Jews, Romani, the disabled, leftists, socialists etc.

They then turned to Austria (because it was full of so called 'ethnic Germans') for 're-unification'. More war. More violence.

And after they invaded and annexed Poland to create 'living space' for Arayan peoples, then what? What happened to the so called 'Untermensch' living in Poland? Massacres and Genocide.

And then the same in France, Russia and elsewhere.

Now, if the same were to be repeated (an ethnic Nationalist party gets in power in Germany again, and shuts the borders) what happens to 'non ethnic Germans'? Who gets it in the neck? What about Austria (which is full of 'ethnic Germans')? Do we not see the exact same ridiculous s**t happening all over again?

Ethnic nationalism is ******* madness. It invariably leads to war, genocide and persecution.

Civic nationalism is a different kettle of fish.

I assumed we were talking about ethnically pure states. When you compare ethnically pure states to say, the Ottoman Empire, there is a lot less internal conflict.

 

[Malifice]

Yeah, that was arguably my weakest post on the board yet. I deserve a ban.

Heh.

The Liberal nations of the World (US, UK, France) allied with the Communists (Russia) defeated the so called 'third way' of Fascism/ Nazism in WW2.

While Fascism/ Nazism is opposed to both Liberalism and Communism, you also need to remember that Liberalism and Communism are also equally opposed to one another.

The Fascists/ Nazis embrace an ultra nationalist approach ('State first'), that a liberal wholly rejects. The Communists embrace a similar approach ('Party first') and a collectivist doctrine that a liberal (who are all about the individual first) also wholly rejects.

Both Communists and Liberals believe in a global revolution that is supposed to lead to peace, on account of the world becoming either a liberal (or Communist) utopia. Both doctrines look to spread themselves to other countries, generally by non violent means (although both sides have a number of notable exceptions). Fascists/ ultra nationalists on the other hand just tend to invade other countries, annex them and take what they want.

The main threat to the Liberals (before the rise of the Nazis) was the Communists. In fact Churchill saw Hitler and the Nazis as a useful buffer between the Communist East Europe and Liberal West Europe, knowing full well that the Nazis hated the Communists even more than the Liberals did.

This state of affairs [the liberal capitalist west vs communist east) resumed immediately after WW2 finished.

There is some reasonably compelling arguments around that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were more directed at Stalin and Russia than Japan. The USA has already made a raft of concessions to Stalin (giving him basically all of Eastern Europe) and he had just invaded Manchuria (and looked to be about to sweep across China).

By using the atomic weapons, they let Stalin know in no uncertain terms that they had the bomb, were prepared to use it, and the numerical superiority of the Red Army was now a moot point.

Leading us nicely into the Cold war.

 

[Malifice]

I assumed we were talking about ethnically pure states. When you compare ethnically pure states to say, the Ottoman Empire, there is a lot less internal conflict.

While I might agree with such a point, the only way to get such an 'ethnically pure State' is to embrace ultra nationalism and reject liberalism. You need to accept the State making (and enforcing) laws to discriminate against races/ ethnic groups other than the dominant ethnic group.

Remember, the Nazis tried this. Before murdering the Jews, they first enacted a raft of laws (the Nuremberg laws) designed to severely restrict Jewish participation in society, stop them from marrying or having relations with non Jews, prohibit them trading with non Jews and the like. This was done with the intent of forcing them to emigrate elsewhere.

They even tried to forcibly repatriate them to Madagascar.

Only after all that failed was 'the final solution' enacted.

But even if I were to presume an ethnically pure Nation State could exist without internal persecutions and pogroms, history has shown that such ultra nationalist nation states almost invariably turn on their neighbors and enter a state of War.

Once you've finished persecuting the 'them' in your own country, you then have to deal with the 'existential threat' 'they' pose 'over there'. 'They' will always be a threat, even if 'they' are no longer in your own country.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Both Communists and Liberals believe in a global revolution that is supposed to lead to peace, on account of the world becoming either a liberal (or Communist) utopia. Both doctrines look to spread themselves to other countries, generally by non violent means (although both sides have a number of notable exceptions). Fascists/ ultra nationalists on the other hand just tend to invade other countries, annex them and take what they want.

I'm gonna need some assistance in understanding Britain and the US's 'non violent means' methods of spreading liberalism.

The main threat to the Liberals (before the rise of the Nazis) was the Communists. In fact Churchill saw Hitler and the Nazis as a useful buffer between the Communist East Europe and Liberal West Europe, knowing full well that the Nazis hated the Communists even more than the Liberals did.

Churchill's racism was scantly better than Hitler's. He just chose the winning side. A fair world would've seen him hung up in a similar manner to Saddam. EDIT: A Gaddafi death would've been better.

There is some reasonably compelling arguments around that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were more directed at Stalin and Russia than Japan. The USA has already made a raft of concessions to Stalin (giving him basically all of Eastern Europe) and he had just invaded Manchuria (and looked to be about to sweep across China).

By using the atomic weapons, they let Stalin know in no uncertain terms that they had the bomb, were prepared to use it, and the numerical superiority of the Red Army was now a moot point.

This is a revisionist argument to justify the murder of millions. It is well established that US generals viewed Asians as being subhuman.

EDIT: The above can also be seen in the way the US experimented on Polynesians to see the effects of Radiation. The 'scare the communists' argument reeks of justifying mass murder on an unparalleled scale.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

While I might agree with such a point, the only way to get such an 'ethnically pure State' is to embrace ultra nationalism and reject liberalism. You need to accept the State making (and enforcing) laws to discriminate against races/ ethnic groups other than the dominant ethnic group.

Remember, the Nazis tried this. Before murdering the Jews, they first enacted a raft of laws (the Nuremberg laws) designed to severely restrict Jewish participation in society, stop them from marrying or having relations with non Jews, prohibit them trading with non Jews and the like. This was done with the intent of forcing them to emigrate elsewhere.

They even tried to forcibly repatriate them to Madagascar.

Only after all that failed was 'the final solution' enacted.

But even if I were to presume an ethnically pure Nation State could exist without internal persecutions and pogroms, history has shown that such ultra nationalist nation states almost invariably turn on their neighbors and enter a state of War.

Once you've finished persecuting the 'them' in your own country, you then have to deal with the 'existential threat' 'they' pose 'over there'. 'They' will always be a threat, even if 'they' are no longer in your own country.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. The biggest issue with 'ethnically pure' is that it's non-existent. Someone on the border of two cultures will have a mix of both of those cultures with some of their own.

 

[Malifice]

I'm gonna need some assistance in understanding Britain and the US's 'non violent means' methods of spreading liberalism.

Look at the imposition of liberal constitutions on the losers of WW2 (Germany and Japan). The development and economic investment of Western Europe after the War by the USA.

But I do agree; such means have generally involved violence. Usually in the form of Proxy wars during the Cold war (Latin america, Vietnam and Korea etc).

Churchill's racism was scantly better than Hitler's. He just chose the winning side. A fair world would've seen him hung up in a similar manner to Saddam.

Churchill was definately a racist. No argument from me there. But the UK (the nation he was the PM of) was (and remains) a liberal parliamentary democracy, with a separation of the powers, independent judiciary, adhering to the Rule of law etc.

Churchill being a racist Tory doesnt change that.

This is a revisionist argument to justify the murder of millions. It is well established that US generals viewed Asians as being subhuman.

Thats over simplifying it in the extreme. It was US Generals who opposed the atomic bombing, in particular Eisenhower (General of the Armies):

Secretary of War Henry Stimson informed Dwight D. Eisenhower, general of the armies, that the bomb would be dropped on Japan. In “Mandate for Change,” Eisenhower’s autobiography, Ike related this exchange: “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/08/we_didnt_have_to_drop_the_bomb_127709.html

What happened was the Russians (who had a non aggression pact with Japan) broke that pact and invaded Manchuria between the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you look at the picture I posted above showing troop dispositions in Germany at the end of WW2, you'll see clearly that the Russians could easily have swept over Europe, instead of stopping in Berlin.

Remember, the Russians were the enemy before the War (and the big concern they would sweep over Western Europe 'to bring the light of Communism'), and they were the enemy again immediately after the War (for the same reasons).

As it was, Roosevelt and Churchill made a lot of concessions to Stalin to keep him happy (they gave him Manchuria, and all of Eastern Europe). The Bomb was (at least in part) a way to make him sit up and take notice that numerical superiority was no longer the way forward in warfare.

 

[its free real estate]

Europe (post WW2) has been notable due to the absence of ethnic nationalism (barring a few small areas, such as Yugoslavia, Ireland and some parts of Spain) that was rampant prior, and due the increase in open borders, open trade, integration between the member State, and increased migration (both within Europe and from abroad).

Your understanding of history is so amateurish it’s almost comical. Borders were open in the 18th, 19th century and early 20th century. That’s why ethnic Germans were found all the way into what we now call Russia. Why Slavs, Magyars, Germans and Jews lived side by side in cities like Budapest and Prague for centuries.

That is, up until 1945 when the victorious powers decided that this was causing all the problems, forced mass ethnic cleansing, and instituted ethnic nation states, and put up borders where previously there were none.

 

[Malifice]

That is, up until 1945 when the victorious powers decided that this was causing all the problems, forced mass ethnic cleansing, and instituted ethnic nation states, and put up borders where previously there were none.

Revisionist in the extreme.

The victorious powers (of whom included the Communists under Stalin) forcibly repatriated Germans from mainly what is now Poland and the former Prussian regions, areas that were to come under the control of said Communists and Stalin, and were carried out by said Communists and Stalin.

There were no 'borders erected'. For *s sake, before WW2 the border between France and Germany was the ******* Maginot line, literally hundreds of miles of pill boxes, bastard wire and trenches. The countries used different currencies, had totally different laws, totally different forms of State, and the Germans viewed the French as Untermensch (mainly Germanic, but impure due to the influence of 'other races'). Hitler ranted about the evils of the French in Mein Kampf.

Today you can drive a car between the two nations and you dont even realise it until the dude at the petrol station is talking a different language. The laws are shared in many areas, you use the same currency, and no-one really gives a s**t. Literally a million ethnic Germans live in France (130,000 who were born in Germany) and vice versa.

You live in a fantasy world if you think peace in Europe is due to the 'racial homogeneity' of varying nation states on the continent. They're literally 10000 times more peaceful now that they're integrated, then they were when they were surrounded by ******* hard borders protected by machine guns and pill boxes.

 

[its free real estate]

Revisionist in the extreme.

The victorious powers (of whom included the Communists under Stalin) forcibly repatriated Germans from mainly what is now Poland and the former Prussian regions, areas that were to come under the control of said Communists and Stalin, and were carried out by said Communists and Stalin.

There were no 'borders erected'. For ****s sake, before WW2 the border between France and Germany was the ******* Maginot line, literally hundreds of miles of pill boxes, bastard wire and trenches. The countries used different currencies, had totally different laws, totally different forms of State, and the Germans viewed the French as Untermensch (mainly Germanic, but impure due to the influence of 'other races'). Hitler ranted about the evils of the French in Mein Kampf.

Today you can drive a car between the two nations and you dont even realise it until the dude at the petrol station is talking a different language. The laws are shared in many areas, you use the same currency, and no-one really gives a s**t. Literally a million ethnic Germans live in France (130,000 who were born in Germany) and vice versa.

You live in a fantasy world if you think peace in Europe is due to the 'racial homogeneity' of varying nation states on the continent. They're literally 10000 times more peaceful now that they're integrated, then they were when they were surrounded by ******* hard borders protected by machine guns and pill boxes.

How is a Budapest that is 95% Hungarian now more integrated than one that was 50% Hungarian, 20% German, 20% Jewish and 10% Slav?

 

[Seeds]

How can WWII be considered a victory of liberalism when the way Britain treated countries like India was anything but liberal? As far as I know, liberalism is about ensuring people have rights and aren't discriminated based on race etc.

Did Britain fulfil that criteria?

No ones ever considered a war result a victory of liberalism. Liberalism discourages the robot sacrificial mentality that is necessary among troops. Its just something that its free real estate made up so he could argue against it.

 

[Malifice]

Liberalism discourages the robot sacrificial mentality that is necessary among troops.

Not true. We train our soldiers to follow orders just fine.

Or as we put it in the Army: This isn't a a democracy; we just fight for one'

Its just something that its free real estate made up so he could argue against it.

He's providing much hilarity in this thread.

His central argument is 'Europe would be more peaceful if it resorted to ultra nationalist ethnic nationalism' and that 'the cause of peace on the European continent has been the ethnic nationalism of its member nations' and 'the only reason Europe is failing is because of mixed ethnic groups' and that 'liberalism has failed.'

Or, to put it another way: 'Europe would be more peaceful under Hitler 2.0.'

Considering elsewhere he's also asserted that the ''White race'' is a thing (and that it's superior to other races), that the reason Europe is 'superior' to the rest of the World is due to this 'white race', and his current strong advocacy of ethnic nationalism (presumably a 'Europe for the White race') you can see where his loyalties lie. I didn't bandy about a reference to Stormfront lightly before.

Sieg ******* Heil.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

As arguments for ethno-nationalism go, it's extraordinarily weak.

 

[Malifice]

As arguments for ethno-nationalism go, it's extraordinarily weak.

You can trace ethnic nationalism as being at the root of nearly every major conflict in history.

To say it 'promotes peace' is beyond hilarious and absurd in the extreme.

The one thing its free real estate and I agree on is that 'ethnic conflicts lead to war'.

His solution (to end the ethnic conflicts) is to embrace ethnic nationalism. Which of course is simply embracing the very problem we're trying to address, and invariably leads us to war and genocide. See also: Hitler.

My solution is to repudiate ethnic nationalism, and work towards ameliorating the petty racism, ethnocentrism and nationalism, and have a more open and liberal society where no-one gives a * what 'race' you belong to, and we can all just learn to get along with each other despite our petty differences.