WRDL Debate #3: The Rise of European Nationalism: Winner: Thurisaz

[Thurisaz]

are either of these two european?

Both of us are.

Also Thurisaz is American isnt?

No.

 

[snakedafunky]

I will argue against endless wars, authoritarian states, suffering and horrendous racism or how we will call it in this debate The Rise of Nationalism in Europe.

To understand why a Rise of Nationalism in Europe is bad and why it caused the greatest disaster in human history twice we just have to look into European history.

Nationalism in Europe is a construct of modernity it is not an inevitability. It had its causes in the french revolution and the following Napoleon wars 1803-1815.
Which were followed by German unification and the Austro-Prussian war in 1866. And the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 which lead to WW1 and WW2.

In the example of the unification of Germany, we can already see the true face of the Rise of Nationalism.
Thinking that nationalism somehow peacefully or willfully unified the German people that wanted to live together as a homogeneous population or with their "extended family" is pure fiction.
There was no vote there was no referendum the Prussian cannons did the voting and unification for the people. The Nationalist forced people to live together. And killed or silenced people that were against it.

While nationalism can serve as a unifying force. Thinking that a rise of Nationalism in Europe will be peaceful or beneficial for Europe is delusional.
It has never been peaceful every single rise of nationalism in Europe has caused total war.

There are certain reasons for that. Most important being that several nations or people claim ownership over the same territory.
The Flemish nationalists want control over Flanders. The Basque want control over territories in Spain. German nationalists want to go back to the borders before WW1.
Russian nationalists want to go back to Soviet borders. Some Italien Nationalist want the North to separate from South-Italy the list goes on and on.

Nationalism in Europe does not mean everyone is on a current Nations site. Like you see in the US where every nationalist is an American.
Nationalism in Europe is a very complex issue National borders and regions are disputed between different Nationalists and people in Europe.

A rise of Nationalism in Europe causes nations to be adversaries instead of partners. Which will cause the conflict about contested territory to escalate again.
In addition, the feeling of superiority that a rise of nationalism has always caused in Europe will end in hostile activities.

We just have to look at Europe today. Countries that have taken steps towards a post nationalistic time had no wars with each other. And the quality of life is the highest it has ever been.
That coming off two World Wars that almost cost 100 Million lives. Not to forget that Nationalism also paved the ways for the trains to Auschwitz.
Nationalism had its place and purpose in European history. But it has been proven time and time again what the end result of a Rise of Nationalism in Europe will be.

Hoping for a Rise of Nationalism in Europe is hoping to go back to a time of unimaginable suffering, horrendous racism, authoritarian states and endless wars.


@Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

You can start by not bringing this up in here and instead in, you know, the sticky created specifically for this purpose..

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/wrdl-sign-up-sheet-debate-topics-scoreboard.3464263/unread

Agreed. Great post. Also more information can be found

Spoiler: HERE

as well.

 

[JDragon]

Agreed. Great post. Also more information can be found

Spoiler: HERE

as well.

It's good to see you keep supporting science, but why the perpetuation of hurt for @Amerikuracana ?

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

It's good to see you keep supporting science, but why the perpetuation of hurt for @Amerikuracana ?

 

[snakedafunky]

Agreed. Great post. Also more information can be found

Spoiler: HERE

as well.

I am starting to wonder if the New York Athletic Commission selected the judges for this debate?
Considering I called you a pedo and a Hamas sympathiser during the War Romm elections.
And this picture is clear evidence you haven't let go of the campaign.

 

[Amerikuracana]

It's good to see you keep supporting science, but why the perpetuation of hurt for @Amerikuracana ?

I'm nailing a Syrian girl right now.. And I'll get with one of the black girls I'm talking to soon enough. I'm doing fine.

 

[Lead]

I am starting to wonder if the New York Athletic Commission selected the judges for this debate?
Considering I called you a pedo and a Hamas sympathiser during the War Romm elections.
And this picture is clear evidence you haven't let go of the campaign.

Damn I forgot how much mud slinging occurred

I'm nailing a Syrian girl right now.. And I'll get with one of the black girls I'm talking to soon enough. I'm doing fine.

Was this the election promise girl?

 

[Amerikuracana]

Damn I forgot how much mud slinging occurred



Was this the election promise girl?

No. She was an alchy and we broke up not long after. She had a really cute face and big boobs. I missed her until recently.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I am starting to wonder if the New York Athletic Commission selected the judges for this debate?
Considering I called you a pedo and a Hamas sympathiser during the War Romm elections.
And this picture is clear evidence you haven't let go of the campaign.

Don't remember you calling me a pedo or hamas supporter LOL. Wtf, wrong guy? My name has ZERO to do with Palestine... or ae you drunk?

What do you mean let go of the campaign? I won hahaha i can do w/e the fuck i want and if i want to joke with the J-Drag i shall.

Now focus on not getting blown the fuck out of this debate.

 

[snakedafunky]

Don't remember you calling me a pedo or hamas supporter LOL. Wtf, wrong guy? My name has ZERO to do with Palestine... or ae you drunk?

What do you mean let go of the campaign? I won hahaha i can do w/e the fuck i want and if i want to joke with the J-Drag i shall.

Now focus on not getting blown the fuck out of this debate.

I still got the tweet in my tinypic account.

But I should probably point out I was joking in case that wasn't clear.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I still got the tweet in my tinypic account.

But I should probably point out I was joking in case that wasn't clear.

Omg hahaha damn, that was good.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Omg hahaha damn, that was good.

That election was full of epic tweets imo

 

[Thurisaz]

I apologize for the reading audience if they have trouble following an incisive approach to my opponent's argument, but I find it easier to address expressed points in situ than trying to do so in a concise manner afterwards.

It appears the format change took @snakedafunky by surprise. Of the 12 arguments I made in favor of Nationalism he didn't address any - instead he makes a case of his own that relies entirely on fear mongering. I would enjoy seeing him acknowledge the fact that I have actually made a case and try refuting it, but I'm gracious enough to comment on his stuff. I just think it is frustrating that his response is one that is completely speaking past me.

I will argue against endless wars, authoritarian states, suffering and horrendous racism or how we will call it in this debate The Rise of Nationalism in Europe.

I note he frames his whole argument to an emotional case. Considering the suffering in the hands of non-Nationalist authoritarian states during the same period and since - and the sort we're under right now - I think the pile of bodies isn't what he wants to start pointing at. Globalist ideologies in the 20th century alone have murdered a lot more people during peacetime than died in the World Wars - and what part of those was due to nationalism is very debatable - and the death toll of those ideologies are still rising fast.

To understand why a Rise of Nationalism in Europe is bad and why it caused the greatest disaster in human history twice we just have to look into European history.

Nationalism in Europe is a construct of modernity it is not an inevitability. It had its causes in the french revolution and the following Napoleon wars 1803-1815.
Which were followed by German unification and the Austro-Prussian war in 1866. And the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 which lead to WW1 and WW2.

I see my opponent does not understand the nature of Nationalism. It is not a product of recent thinking, but goes back in time as far as history does and probably beyond. Its roots are in tribalism, which is rooted in human nature, and a nation is simply a big tribe - far bigger than was possible during most of human history. The tribal instinct of the human animal isn't a recent invention, it is something that we have to live with, whether we want to or not. It is never going away. To oppose it is to oppose the fundamentals of human nature. Therefore multi-ethnic societies rarely form and inevitably collapse to ethnic strife, as proven by all of world history. That every nation should have its own land to live in as they see fit should be obvious - everything else is violence against that freedom.

I'm not an utopist and don't think nation states result in paradise on earth - far from it - but it is by leaps and bounds better than any of its alternatives. A nation can be unified through culture and common values, an empire can only be united through force - and because a multiethnic society stays together only through the threat of violence, it results precisely in the sort of authoritarianism my opponent pretends objecting to. Take a look at the EU: entirely undemocratic and arbitrary, and answers to no one for its disastrous policies while failing at the most basic duties a government is responsible for.

In the example of the unification of Germany, we can already see the true face of the Rise of Nationalism.
Thinking that nationalism somehow peacefully or willfully unified the German people that wanted to live together as a homogeneous population or with their "extended family" is pure fiction.
There was no vote there was no referendum the Prussian cannons did the voting and unification for the people. The Nationalist forced people to live together. And killed or silenced people that were against it.

My opponent here is making a case against multinational empires and doing a bang up job of it. Empires force people to do stuff. Nations do stuff of their own volition. I think it is entirely possible that the scars that result from forced unification of Germany might well attribute to the fact that the treasonous German regime feels absolutely no loyalty to the people they're elected to govern. It's the same with bureaucrats throwing carelessly and uselessly other people's money away: they have no skin in the game. They think it's not their people and thus they don't care about what happens to it. A nation, on the other hand, is an entity that is unified through blood, culture and history. They've grown together much in the same vein a family is. Thus the ruler, like a father, is obligated to serve his people and feels responsible for their continued well being. The latter isn't always the case, of course, but when the ruler comes from outside it is never the case.

While nationalism can serve as a unifying force. Thinking that a rise of Nationalism in Europe will be peaceful or beneficial for Europe is delusional.
It has never been peaceful every single rise of nationalism in Europe has caused total war.

Humans fight wars for a myriad of reasons, and people do not become immune to greed or megalomania simply by virtue of living among their own. It does not perfect what is flawed from the start, that is, the human nature. It only prevents unnecessary, easily preventable problems. As nationalism endorses the right of every people to its life and land - not only one people - attacking another nation is not a nationalist act.

There are certain reasons for that. Most important being that several nations or people claim ownership over the same territory.
The Flemish nationalists want control over Flanders. The Basque want control over territories in Spain. German nationalists want to go back to the borders before WW1.
Russian nationalists want to go back to Soviet borders. Some Italien Nationalist want the North to separate from South-Italy the list goes on and on.

Here is the only salient point you manage to make that doesn't leak like the Titanic after a passionate encounter with an iceberg. That several people claim ownership over the same territory is a problem and it is one that usually leads to war over it. That, again, is an argument against multi-ethnic territories. Yes, if peaceful resolution a'la the Czech and the Slovaks is impossible, wars happen, and yes, atrocities will be committed. After the question gets settled, it is settled, however gruesome the war may be. What's the alternative? History, even quite recent one, proves that trying to force people who don't want to live among each other results in the destruction of community and a perpetual, ever escalating civil conflict within the area until the warring peoples get separated by borders. That's why I say nation states are inevitable. Water and oil don't mix.

The Russian federation is an empire and a decrepit one at that, having already lost several of its nations as they wanted their independence. Russian imperialists might be megalomaniac enough to try reuniting the empire, but that's directly opposed to the goals of nationalism and it predictably leads to their pride leading them to a fall again. Keeping an empire together is a hard work and it is a waste of time and resources.

Nationalism in Europe does not mean everyone is on a current Nations site. Like you see in the US where every nationalist is an American.
Nationalism in Europe is a very complex issue National borders and regions are disputed between different Nationalists and people in Europe.

The disputes should be solved and peoples separated. No one gains from trying to force people, who don't want anything to do with each other, to live together. We oppose shotgun marriages but for some reason you appear to be of the opinion that shotgun marriages between peoples are a great idea.

A rise of Nationalism in Europe causes nations to be adversaries instead of partners.

Say, which do you think is more likely: you becoming an adversary to your next door neighbor when there is a wall separating your family from his, or when there is not and you live under the same roof? If you think that you'd be at odds with your neighbor when you live under the same roof, why can't you expand the exact same principle to nations?

Which will cause the conflict about contested territory to escalate again.
In addition, the feeling of superiority that a rise of nationalism has always caused in Europe will end in hostile activities.

These days we do have this thing called the Internet. It allows us to use measurable metrics to determine the validity of our feelings of superiority without resorting to arms. Hostilities between peoples are the result of poorly defined and maintained borders, not the other way round. No one in Ireland was hostile to Poles until the latter came there. You can swap the peoples involved to any that are currently having trouble with each other and it still stays true.

We just have to look at Europe today. Countries that have taken steps towards a post nationalistic time had no wars with each other. And the quality of life is the highest it has ever been.

No: real wages have been steadily dropping for decades, economic collapse is imminent, demographics are in decline, crime is rising, people are living in fear of rapes, robberies and terror strikes, families are being torn apart, as is societal harmony. Absolutely none of those are signs of a healthy society. They're signs of a dying one. If that is "high quality" I shudder to think what has still to happen until you consider Europe's situation "bad".

That coming off two World Wars that almost cost 100 Million lives. Not to forget that Nationalism also paved the ways for the trains to Auschwitz.

Want to know one interesting tidbit about what lead to Auschwitz? It's a foreign people living among native populace. That's one of the reasons I'm a Nationalist: I don't want that shit to happen again. I support Israel and have been parroting Bibi that Jews should go home. Nowhere else is safe for them. Every people needs and deserves a home of their own.

Nationalism had its place and purpose in European history. But it has been proven time and time again what the end result of a Rise of Nationalism in Europe will be.

The facts of the matter are simple: either the nation has a voice and gets heard or the nation makes itself heard through violence. It is a pattern that has been constant throughout history.

Hoping for a Rise of Nationalism in Europe is hoping to go back to a time of unimaginable suffering, horrendous racism, authoritarian states and endless wars.

An empire can never be anything but authoritarian. A nation can be whatever it wants to be.

I can only consider your silence on immigration a tacit admission that it is destructive to a nation.

 

[Bald1]

Let the participants make their own points, and leave the debating to them please. You can butt heads with Snake after the debate is over. Neither one of these two need any help.

Appreciate your cooperation.

 

[Lead]

Looks like the debates are back. Good posts so far guys

 

[m52nickerson]

I can understand @Thurisaz wanting to break up and respond to @snakedafunky the way he did, it is easier. However I think this should be avoided during debates as it leads arguments over specific point instead of tackling the topic at large.

 

[Lead]

Let the participants make their own points, and leave the debating to them please. You can butt heads with Snake after the debate is over. Neither one of these two need any help.

Appreciate your cooperation.

This.

Any posts that engage in the debate before it concludes will be deleted. Please respect the format set in place for these threads and sign up for your own debate in the other sticky thread if you are interested in participating.

 

[Thurisaz]

Neither one of these two need any help.

Well... I don't.

 

[snakedafunky]

I couldn't go into much of your points because almost none of them addressed the Rise of Nationalism in Europe. I didn't see a single reference to a European country or city.
No reference to dates of historical events. No explaining of border situations. Instead, it seems to be just some write up about tribalism and Multi-culturalism.

You obviously realised you didn't fully understand what the Rise of Nationalism in Europe means before agreeing to the debate. And now you try to confuse the audience by answering to specific points.
You claim the Rise of Nationalism is not a recent thing. That is factual wrong the Rise of Nationalism in Europe has its origin in the French Revolution.
It seems you confuse the topic The Rise of Nationalism in Europe with some kind of tribalism. But it's not The Rise of Nationalism in Europe is a clearly defined event in history with a clear timeline until today.

Your last reply again seems to be full of rumbling about tribalism. Not sure why that is? The topic is not the Rise of Tribalism in Europe is a good thing.
It clearly refers to a historic event of the Rise of Nationalism in Europe. Which has its origin in the French revolution.

Because you don't address the topic again I will leave answering specific points for a later. Who knows you might still come around and address the topic.
I will just keep making my case that The Rise of Nationalism in Europe is a not good thing.

We learned in 1945 that Peace treaties and Alliances simply didn't work to establish peace and rule of law in Europe. Everyone in Europe agreed that the main reason for that was due to the aggressor Nationalism. The Rise of Nationalism in Europe an Ideology that caused Self-exaltation in Nations. The belief in your own Nations superiority which always leads to conflict with other Nations in Europe.
Were determent to be the main factor for WW1 and WW2. Now 70 years later we know that to be true because we had no wars between each other since steps towards a post Nationalistic time have been taken.

It was after WW2 that people realized we need to take steps for a post-Nationalistic Europe. Because keep doing what you are doing and expecting a different result would be insanity.
Now after Europe longest time of peace and prosperity a Rise of Nationalism would simply put us back to a the pre-1945 area.

All arguments for a Rise of Nationalism have already been disproven by history and people that don't know history.
We can often hear a rise of Nationalism in Europe will form Identity, with the basis of common culture, history, mentality and language will bring a solidarity from an individual to the Societal as a whole.

Those arguments, of course, are pure fiction. If language were constitutive for national Identity, Austria would have to be a part of the German nation. But if you consider shared history Austria and Hungary would be one Nation. If it were culture Upper Austria and South-Germany would be a nation. But North-Germany or West-Austria clearly would not fit into that nation from a cultural point.
The mentality of people from big cities drastically varies from people in a small Alp village or a small West German villages despite a shared language or borders.
A city like Vienna is closer to a city like Bratislava, Budapest or Munich from not just a mentality history point but also distance compared to Gfoel in Tirol or Feldkirch in Vorarlberg even if the people in those villages have the same passport as people from Vienna.
The last 200+ years since the Rise of Nationalism in Europe until 1945 has shown us that Nationalists are unable to agree on what nation should exist. It created a spiral into endless war. Which is exactly what would happen if we experience a Rise of Nationalism in Europe again.

If anything we can call the Rise of Nationalism in Europe an unavoidable step on a way to a peaceful Europe. But let's look into nation building on the example of Germany which if we discuss Nationalism in Europe is the most important topic.
The German nation building was simply 40 smaller states and Kingdoms coming together and established a single market and common political institutions and rules. Which was followed by wars to expand the territories and to completely separate from Austria-Hungary and France.
Now if you would argue that the Rise of Nationalism in Europe is a good thing you would have to be under the impression that this would be the end of mankind's political and social development. That time right there sometime in the mid 19th century between horrendous wars was the time mankind's political development stopped in Europe. It developed and came closer together until that point but any effort to come closer together and develop from that point on out is a Globalist conspiracy. Despite the fact that the efforts and development taken in 1945 to create peace have worked.

This brings me to my last point. If you think the Rise of Nationalism in Europe is a good thing.
How can any reasonable person believe you can keep the beast of German Nationalism under control once it's released again.
History has already proven you can't domesticate German Nationalism. It is willing to go all the way.
Anyone making a case for the Rise of Nationalism in Europe first needs to explain how they want to contain a hostile Germany in a nuclear age.

@Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty