Politics Pros and Cons of modern western civilisation

[its free real estate]

No ones ever considered a war result a victory of liberalism.

Tell it to Malifice.

I didn't bandy about a reference to Stormfront lightly before.

Malifice’s law.

 

[Malifice]

Tell it to Malifice.

Mate come on. You're an avowed white nationalist. You've been arguing the 'merits' of European ethnic nationalism all bloody thread!

In other threads you've also argued for the existence of 'biologically discreet' races, and you've also obliquely asserted that Europe is only as advanced as it is due to the 'white race' that inhabits it, and that all of our conflicts can be attributed to 'the mixing of the races.'

You've also expressed admiration (and sympathy) for Germany before, during and post WW2, and have a very detailed knowledge of WW2.

You've never (in this incarnation) flat out expressly argued for a 'homeland for the [superior] white race' but your message is clear, even if you've learnt not to cross that line on this forum.

Or to quote Dennis Pagan: 'Dont piss on my back and tell me it's raining.'

 

[Frank Bunn]

Some aboriginal mobs in Voctoria practised infanticide, but not for spiritual reasons - it was to maintain a sustainable population. Brutal, but effective.

Maintaining a sustainable population makes it sound like a noble or planned thing. They were murdering their babies. It happened because they didn't have birth control or abortion, and hunter gatherers often had to be on the move to find their food - which restricts the number of children that can be supported. The sick and the elderly had the same fate.

After the advent of farming there was a period of thousands of years were people tended to have several children - and there was generally enough food that they could all be fed. But there was high child mortality due to disease.

We have now reached the stage where family sizes are decreasing because i) advances in health mean there's a very good chance children will live to be adults and and ii) contraceptives mean that couples can plan how many children they have.

 

[its free real estate]

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

Whether you are for or against ethnonationalism is immaterial: it’s what happened. Whatever anyone thinks about liberalism being embraced, the settlement of Europe as a result of the two world wars was a redrawing of national boundaries according to ethnicity, and the (historically anomalous) 70 years of resultant peace must be taken in that context.

 

[smokingjacket]

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

It's a much more interesting question when you don't stack the deck by saying Imperial Japan when you could use the example of modern Japan which is one of the most peaceful and successful societies on the planet by most measures.

 

[its free real estate]

It's a much more interesting question when you don't stack the deck by saying Imperial Japan when you could use the example of modern Japan which is one of the most peaceful and successful societies on the planet by most measures.

Yeah I let that slide, too hard to keep up with Malifice’s argumentum ad wikipedium.

 

[smokingjacket]

Yeah I let that slide, too hard to keep up with Malifice’s argumentum ad wikipedium.

There's a few in there but I'll leave you two to discuss it.

My two cents is that IMO it's impossible to discuss Germany 1914-1945 without a Godwin descent.

There are plenty of other examples to use of violence in the search of a "monist state" that work just as well like the Ottomans/Turkey and the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian Genocide; the breakup of Yugoslavia; Spain under Franco.

The states that were instinctively "multicultural" post WWII were the imperial powers (UK, US, France, Soviet Union) with the greatest incentive to justify their empires at a time of powerful nationalist sentiment. A lot of the the pamphleteering of the anti-colonialist struggle was flat out reactionary/racist.

 

[its free real estate]

There's a few in there but I'll leave you two to discuss it.

IMO it's impossible to discuss Germany 1914-1945 without a Godwin descent.

There are plenty of other examples to use of violence in the search of a "monist state" that work just as well like the Ottomans/Turkey and the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian Genocide; the breakup of Yugoslavia; Spain under Franco.

The states that were instinctively "multicultural" post WWII were the imperial powers (UK, US, France, Soviet Union) with the greatest incentive to justify their empires at a time of powerful nationalist sentiment. A lot of the the pamphleteering of the anti-colonialist struggle was flat out reactionary/racist.

It’s dangerous when you start talking about the Ottoman Empire, because things didn’t resolve themselves cleanly. We’re still dealing with the failures of that empire’s collapse today in Iraq and Syria.

But what pretty much everyone agrees is that the boundaries drawn did not hew to ethnic lines enough, and the resultant persecution of Kurds, Shia, and Yazidis, among other groups, is because the nations created were multiethnic with one ethnic group holding all the power.

 

[Seeds]

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'



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.

Yes we do train our soldiers just fine when they are voluntary workers earning a decent wage. But nations with less focus on the rights and virtues of individuals and more emphasis on the greatness of the state are able to find a whole lot more robotic sacrificial soldiers and dont have to pay them much at all. Look at the number of soldiers that exist in China and nth Korea.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Whether you are for or against ethnonationalism is immaterial: it’s what happened. Whatever anyone thinks about liberalism being embraced, the settlement of Europe as a result of the two world wars was a redrawing of national boundaries according to ethnicity, and the (historically anomalous) 70 years of resultant peace must be taken in that context.

What were the consequences of this abandoning of ethnic homogenisation in Europe?

 

[its free real estate]

What were the consequences of this abandoning of ethnic homogenisation in Europe?

When?

 

[smokingjacket]

It’s dangerous when you start talking about the Ottoman Empire, because things didn’t resolve themselves cleanly. We’re still dealing with the failures of that empire’s collapse today in Iraq and Syria.

But what pretty much everyone agrees is that the boundaries drawn did not hew to ethnic lines enough, and the resultant persecution of Kurds, Shia, and Yazidis, among other groups, is because the nations created were multiethnic with one ethnic group holding all the power.

Yeah that's right. With the collapse of imperial authority the Young Turk radicals wanted to create a Turkish state and one of the plotters told an American representative as early as 1910 that they couldn't/wouldn't share a Turkish identity with Christians, and that went double for the Armenians who they loathed. The Kurds were Sunni though, and one of the more reactionary and backward expressions of it at the time. The Turks set the Kurds on the Armenian and the Assyrian civilian train and seeing the brutality they inflicted on kafir women and children, probably didn't foresee them becoming a problem down the track. To their credit both the Turko-Kurd and Iraqi-Kurdish leadership have made extremely heartfelt and sincere apologies for their role in the genocide of Turkey's Christian population since.

 

[its free real estate]

Never forget that the group of people who suffered the most from ethnonationalism decided it was in their best interests after their genocide to form an ethnic nation state.

 

[FireKrakouer]

It's a much more interesting question when you don't stack the deck by saying Imperial Japan when you could use the example of modern Japan which is one of the most peaceful and successful societies on the planet by most measures.

Apparently the Japanese only admitted 27 refugees last year. Of which, 2 have already been arrested for rape. They may rethink even such modest generosity going forward.

https://www.tokyoreporter.com/japan...turkish-asylum-seekers-in-gang-rape-of-woman/

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Never forget that the group of people who suffered the most from ethnonationalism decided it was in their best interests after their genocide to form an ethnic nation state.

I don't think Israel should be your exhibit A for peaceful ethno-nationalism.

 

[smokingjacket]

Never forget that the group of people who suffered the most from ethnonationalism decided it was in their best interests after their genocide to form a ethnic nation state.

Not that I've followed the thread well but to me it appears the main reason you and Mal are talking past one another is that he sees the nation state and the cultural and physical trappings of national identity as bad by definition.

Yes, nationalism can be exclusionary. Yes, nationalism can be xenophobic. Yes, nationalism can be built on violence. However the nation state can also simultaneously mean safety, solidarity, purpose and pride for the ingroup.

 

[smokingjacket]

I don't think Israel should be your exhibit A for peaceful ethno-nationalism.

I think the context of that one was the creation of the Armenian state on the fringe of the new Turkey. They wanted their own state so badly that they gave up a claim on maybe 2/3% of what was dejure the land of the Armenian nobility and people going back thousands of years.

 

[its free real estate]

I don't think Israel should be your exhibit A for peaceful ethno-nationalism.

Around 80% of Armenians disappeared, not even the Jews were erased as comprehensively. The Nazis even boasted about how no one remembered them.

There is now a state called Armenia which is 100% Armenian.

 

[Malifice]

Never forget that the group of people who suffered the most from ethnonationalism decided it was in their best interests after their genocide to form an ethnic nation state.

And hows that going for the Palestinians?

 

[its free real estate]

And hows that going for the Palestinians?

Dunno, are they claiming the Caucasus too?

 

[Malifice]

It's a much more interesting question when you don't stack the deck by saying Imperial Japan when you could use the example of modern Japan which is one of the most peaceful and successful societies on the planet by most measures.

Japan is not mono-ethnic. It's actually a conglomeration of multiple ethnic groups. There are a million Koreans living there, and half a million Chinese people, a quarter million Filipinos, 250,000 Brazillians, plus the Ainu, Ryukuans, Burakumin and other ethnic groups in addition to the Yamato. In addition anyone (regardless of race) is considered 'Japanese' in the census if they're Japanese citizens:

According to census statistics, 98.5% of the population of Japan are Japanese, with the remainder being foreign nationals residing in Japan.[1] However, these statistics measure citizenship, not ethnicity, with all domestic minorities such as the Ainu, Ryukyuans, Burakumin and naturalized immigrants being counted as simply "Japanese."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan#Mainland_Chinese_people

Naturalized Japanese citizens and native-born Japanese nationals with multi-ethnic background are all considered to be Japanese in the population census of Japan,[33] therefore no ethnicity census data is available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan

While they certainly have very (very) low immigration, the numbers are a little misleading.

And this is what low immigration gets you:

Based on 2012 data from the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Japan's population will keep declining by about one million people every year in the coming decades, which would leave Japan with a population of 42 million in 2110 (down from 130 million today). More than 40% of the population is expected to be over the age of 65 in 2060.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan

Dont know about you, but that doesnt sound very sustainable.

And it's a bit of a joke to call Japan 'peaceful'. They only reason they're 'peaceful' is due to the Constitution foisted on them by the USA after the Japanese invaded all of Asia in WW2 that forbids them from having a Military at all. Seventy years ago they were bombing Darwin FFS.

 

[Malifice]

Dunno, are they claiming the Caucasus too?

I presumed you were referring to the Jews when you referred to 'the group of people who suffered the most from ethnonationalism'.

Whose copped it worse than they have?

I can literally stretch it back to the construction of the Pyramids for the Jews , and all the way to the Holocaust (where 2/3 of the Jewish population of Europe were exterminated). In the middle was pretty much non stop pogroms and persecution.

Whos had a shittier run then them from ethnonationalism?

 

[Malifice]

Around 80% of Armenians disappeared, not even the Jews were erased as comprehensively. The Nazis even boasted about how no one remembered them.

Look what ethnic nationalism gets you.

Yet you support it.

 

[Malifice]

Not that I've followed the thread well but to me it appears the main reason you and Mal are talking past one another is that he sees the nation state and the cultural and physical trappings of national identity as bad by definition.

Yes, nationalism can be exclusionary. Yes, nationalism can be xenophobic. Yes, nationalism can be built on violence. However the nation state can also simultaneously mean safety, solidarity, purpose and pride for the ingroup.

I actually have some time for civic nationalism. As long as its allowed to happen in a voluntary manner (i.e. not enforced by the State) and liberty is protected as paramount. You can be as proud of your country as you want to be (or not proud of it at all). It's up to you.

For example, it should not be a crime to burn the flag.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Look what ethnic nationalism gets you.

Yet you support it.

Can you show evidence of this? Repeating this every second post with nothing else is growing tiresome.