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

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Fawlty, Apr 8, 2017.

  1. Fawlty Silver Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    12,289
    Likes Received:
    15,515
    Thanks guys.

    Now for the next ~48 hours the format is open for the two participants to engage freely.
     
    #41
    lecter, snakedafunky and Limbo Pete like this.
  2. Fawlty Silver Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    12,289
    Likes Received:
    15,515
  3. Limbo Pete Super Samoderator Belt

    Limbo Pete
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    11,719
    Likes Received:
    12,937
    I'm diggin this debate so far
     
    #43
    Palis, Bald1 and Fawlty like this.
  4. snakedafunky Brown Belt

    snakedafunky
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    4,900
    Because I had the last statement I will leave the opportunity to freely engage to my opponent.
    And will reply to any request made. Because I know the Sherdog spectators demand entertainment.

    I am however happy to go straight to the Question & Answer and the closing.
    At this point, there is nothing I see from my opponents argument that would need engaging over in regards to the topic the Rise of Nationalism in Europe.

    And I have clearly made my point. But I am happy and look forward to answering all requests from my opponent.
    I just hope this time they will be in regards to the topic.

    @Lead, @Limbo Pete, @JDragon, @HomerThompson, @IDL, @Palis, @Thurisaz, @snakedafunky, @Bald1
     
    #44
  5. Thurisaz Account inactive

    Thurisaz
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,924
    Likes Received:
    3,440
    Location:
    #Altright
    There are quite many of those. How the hell should I address the rise of Nationalism throughout Europe with reference to single cities and countries? If I did that, I'd have to write a book and I'm really not interested in stating the easily observable in such a format.

    I consider the peaceful parting of the Czech and the Slovaks a historical event. Maybe you're of a different opinion, but you're wrong. I could also refer to what happened in the Balkans and why, as in Yugoslavia was another failed multicult attempt at creating a multi-ethnic country that ended in war as the peoples didn't want to live under the same regime. I already explained why this happens.

    I could very well refer to the myriad no-go zones in Paris, Malmö in Sweden, or the enormous mass of rapes that enriched the German new year festivities. These are the direct result of letting invaders in. Another direct result of abandoning nationalism isn't only that the native population get raped and assaulted, the invaders get their share as well. Europe has a couple of kettles near boiling point and when shit hits the fan the invaders get a permanent lodging on spikes.

    I have no need or intention to confuse anyone. I am under the impression that we're discussing current events, not a failed faux-nationalism 80 years ago that insisted on invading everyone's sovereign nations.

    I'm surprised if your misplaced pedantry manages to impress anyone. There were nations in Europe, and indeed, everywhere in the world, long before there was a French Revolution, and they were sovereign in their own lands they had ethnically cleansed of foreign competition. Nations rose and fell because of immigration, which, as the prominent military historian Martin van Creveld notes, is indistinguishable from invasion. As great migrations have proven throughout history, war doesn't require organized military. It requires the movement of people. Any and all alternatives to nation states necessarily and inevitably lead to war.

    I am more interested in Nationalism as a force throughout human history, not splitting hairs over an ideology that isn't even applicable to the current situation. Your personal obsession with the French Revolution lacks justification in the context of this debate.

    Allow me to reiterate, as you appear to be slow today: 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. I rumble about tribalism because it, writ large, is nationalism. And when it becomes universal principle, the N gets capital.

    It might just as well be.

    In #11 you specifically pointed out that we're debating the goodness of the rise of nationalism in Europe, not European Nationalism as you're currently doing.

    The case you're making is that "The Rise of Nationalism in Europe was not a good thing".

    The belief that your own Nation is superior to others is not Nationalism. It is racism. Nationalism is a political ideology that states that every nation should have a state to live in the way they prefer to.

    The rise of Nationalism would simply mean that the nations asserted their right to exist and acted accordingly. To oppose Nationalism in any given region is to oppose the existence of that nation.

    You have given literally no reason at all to disbelieve any of my points about the absolute impossibility of stable states of mixed ethnicities. I am of the opinion that your diversion to historical is intended to cloud the issue we're discussing with irrelevant historical baggage from other ideologies.

    We've also seen it in action.

    What part of "basis of common culture, history, mentality and language" you wrote did you miss when you ditched all the other criteria in favor of one? I also note you forgot blood. Genetics are not irrelevant here.

    Your objection is that you describe a forest and then complain that all you see are specific trees. When you implode your case in this way it leaves little for me to do. It also leads me to suspect that you're neurotypically abnormal. It would explain the irrelevant pedantry you keep hauling along, as well as you failure to see the big picture.

    Nationalists are quite unanimous that the answer to your question is "every nation", as exemplified by the 5th point of the Alt-right. Nationalism isn't a form of social darwinism like you suggest.

    Nationalism isn't nation building. A nation is a necessary prerequisite for the existence of Nationalism, it can't be forced on peoples. What is called "nation building" is empire building.

    Political? Social? Hardly. Nations are not unchanging and unlearning concepts, they are people. People learn, adapt and change. There is no "mankind" that achieves anything, it always boils down to specific people doing specific things.

    I'd be happy to see the "beast of German Nationalism" keep Germany German. Were it to become a dhimmi state for Turkey or assorted other invaders it would be an enormous loss to the world.

    What would be surprising and refreshing would be if you managed to address any, preferably all of my first 12 arguments pro nationalism.

    @Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty
     
    #45
    Factory, Teppodama, HeLLMuTT and 5 others like this.
  6. Bald1 War Room Can

    Bald1
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,435
    Likes Received:
    11,725
    Location:
    Canada
    Things are looking up! Nice work, so far, you two.
     
    #46
  7. snakedafunky Brown Belt

    snakedafunky
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    4,900
    We should probably go over fewer points at time Anyway.

    In that case you should start a debate about Nationalism as a force throughout human history. That is however not the topic here.
    The Rise of Nationalism in Europe refers to the event starting from the French revolution.

    The Alt-right does not relate to the Rise of Nationalism in Europe it is a very recent Amercian construct and therefore automatically rejected by European Nationalists. You are confusing right-wing populists with European nationalists. For example, Right-wing populist like the AFD who agree with the Alt Right in Germany have nothing to do with Nationalists who are usually in the NPD or are Reichsbuerger. They in fact do not accept people that are known to be nationalist or former members of the NPD.

    If you believe the Rise of Nationalism is a good thing. You have to make a case that the time from the French revolution until 1945 was a better time compared to now.
    Because a Rise of Nationalism would bring that time back. You simply take talking points from the American Alt right and say those are the beliefs of Nationalism.
    When in fact it's not. European Nationalist simply do not have the same beliefs. We have already seen the results a Rise of Nationalism in Europe will bring until 1945.
    So those are undisputed the only thing you can do is to argue that those result are better than our current situation in Europe.

    @Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty
     
    #47
    Palis and Limbo Pete like this.
  8. snakedafunky Brown Belt

    snakedafunky
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    4,900
    #48
    Palis likes this.
  9. m52nickerson EXTERMINATE!

    m52nickerson
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    8,036
    Likes Received:
    3,620
    Location:
    In your castle advising your King!
    @snakedafunky has used history as an example, and the fact that we have not have European wars since WW2, something that was pretty much constant in history up to that point. @Thurisaz has only made some pretty vague arguments regarding nations states, but that is not the same as nationalism.
     
    #49
  10. Boost6 Banned

    Boost6
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    851
    Both arguments are weak imo.

    One is based mostly on a single nations genocidal murderous ways, proving more wrong with that single people/nation/culture then nationalism's at all. The other showing nationalism as a natural by product of humanity basic tendencies towards grouping.
     
    #50
  11. Thurisaz Account inactive

    Thurisaz
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,924
    Likes Received:
    3,440
    Location:
    #Altright
    It's doubtful I can manage any more input today than yesterday, i'm really swamped with other duties. Tomorrow I think I'll be back for this.
     
    #51
  12. Thurisaz Account inactive

    Thurisaz
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,924
    Likes Received:
    3,440
    Location:
    #Altright
    We're both very sorry for not living up to your unknown standards. Doubly so for not making our arguments in a way you could have understood.
     
    #52
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
    HeLLMuTT, Palis, M3t4tr0n and 2 others like this.
  13. Boost6 Banned

    Boost6
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    851
    My dog could understand the simple arguments the both of you made, both were shit. You even more weak given the typical limp dick leftist crap he spewed, but but but the nazis lol. Coming from a nazi sympathizer like him even more hilarious.
     
    #53
  14. Thurisaz Account inactive

    Thurisaz
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,924
    Likes Received:
    3,440
    Location:
    #Altright
    When discussing whether the rise of Nationalism in Europe is a good thing, it is pretty damn pertinent to understand what Nationalism is. It is not French Nationalism, which means that the existence of the French nation is imperative and fuck the rest. It is not German Nationalism, which states that Jerries über alles and fuck the rest. Nationalism, without trying to add qualifiers to the word, means the advocacy of a state for each nation, precisely in the sense point 5 of the Alt Right states. It is an universal principle and rooted not only in philosophy but also human nature which is ineradicable and thus of paramount importance to take into account.

    I'm not taking part, nor interested in, a historical debate concerning stuff that was relevant 80 years ago. Neither my initial argument nor your initial "response" centered around the French revolution. You talked about current rise of Nationalism across Europe and only retreated to your historical pedantry after you understood you have absolutely no case left.

    That's quite easily falsified by the fact that you're talking to an European Nationalist, who just so happens to be a part of the Alt-Right. The latter is no more inherently American than it is Richard Spencer's invention even if he coined the term.

    You just happened to demolish your bullshit about Alt-Right not relating to European Nationalism and being automatically rejected by it. Nice job, breh. Consistency is not your strong suit, I see.

    Considering the Rise of Nationalism is exactly what I'm happy about today in contrast to, say, 5 years before, I don't think I have any reason to make that case - even if I could (for example, by noting that every nation was on a steep curve of becoming better both demographically and economically, unlike today when both have been in steady decline for decades).

    I said Nationalism means what point 5 of the Alt Right states. The latter is a subset of the former; not every Nationalist is an Alt Righter, but every Alt Righter is a Nationalist.

    Considering you managed to destroy your case on that yourself, I don't think reiterating it makes a particularly convincing one.

    I can easily argue that the current Nationalistic trend brings better results simply because it is logically consistent and not reserved for Our Nation Only. A Nationalist has literally no reason to invade foreign lands.

    My initial 12 arguments in favor of Nationalism and against its alternatives still stand and aren't even contested - which is sad in the sense that I can, and happily will, back any of them up.

    @Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty
     
    #54
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
    Teppodama and Palis like this.
  15. Thurisaz Account inactive

    Thurisaz
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,924
    Likes Received:
    3,440
    Location:
    #Altright
    Your attempt at summing up our respective arguments reveal without any shade of doubt that you did not understand either one of our positions. Trying to argue out of it now makes little sense.
     
    #55
    Palis and snakedafunky like this.
  16. Boost6 Banned

    Boost6
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    851
    If you took what i posted as arguing out lol, that really shows you lack the mind for even a semi sensible debate. No wonder you cant even rebuttal his bs, you are an embarrassment to your cause.
     
    #56
  17. Lead /Led/

    Lead
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    27,585
    Likes Received:
    8,349
    Location:
    Around Pittsburgh
    Feel free to heckle/ argue with the participants AFTER the debate is over. We are trying our best to prevent this from being derailed mid debate
     
    #57
    CEROVFC, HeLLMuTT, Thurisaz and 4 others like this.
  18. snakedafunky Brown Belt

    snakedafunky
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    4,900
    The Rise of Nationalism in Europe will not cause some kind of rise of the theoretical meaning of nationalism as it relates to tribalism that is a pure delusion.
    The Rise of Nationalism will simply be a repeat of history and catapult Europe back into a time of Endless War, ethnic cleansing and suffering.
    We know that today because the only thing that got Europe out of War, ethnic cleansing and suffering were the steps taken towards a post Nationalistic world.

    The Rise of Nationalism in Europe will always be tied to its Nationalistic history. Which had its origins in the French revolution.
    That somehow the Rise of Nationalism will go down like you describe in your 12 points is of course fiction. Outside of them being right or wrong they simply don't relate to The Rise of Nationalism in Europe.
    Illustrated by the incredible bizarre point that " a Nationalist has literally no reason to invade foreign lands".
    What do you think would happen to all the territories in Eastern Europe that are disputed by 3 or 4 different Nations or People? You would have to think endless war over those territories is a good thing if you believe The Rise of Nationalism in Europe is a good thing.

    That brings us once more to the most important factor when discussing the Rise of Nationalism in Europe.
    What do you think German Nationalist will do if they are back in power. You think they will just leave East Prussia to the Nations and people that are living there right now? It's a common reference among German Nationalists to bring Germany's East back into the Reich. Or even go back to the borders of 1914.

    Can anyone imagine how that conversation would go down?

    New Führer: "Germany has finally re-armed time to take back the East Prussian territories"
    New Goebbels: "But Mein new Führer that doesn't fit with the 12 points of what Nationalist actually are. A Nationalist doesn't invade foreign lands"
    New Führer: "I forgot this time we can only act as Nationalist as described by the American Alt right. Which of course we totally respect and relate to. We always wanted to exchange our 250 years of Prussian history for the principles of a 400LBS guy that lives in his Mums basement, trolls on 4chan and can't get a girlfriend came up with. Let's call back the Army we have to obey by the Alt-right Nationalist rules.

    To think that a Rise of Nationalism in Europe will be somehow good for smaller sovereign countries like Belgium, Austria, Sweden or the Netherland can only be believed by people that don't understand History or the Rise of Nationalism in Europe. They will simply go back to be Pawns used for French, English, German or Russian Nationalistic interest.

    @Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty
     
    #58
    HomerThompson and Palis like this.
  19. Fawlty Silver Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    12,289
    Likes Received:
    15,515
    Not the thread to do this in.
     
    #59
    CEROVFC, Palis and Bald1 like this.
  20. Fawlty Silver Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    12,289
    Likes Received:
    15,515
    @Lead, @Limbo Pete, @JDragon, @HomerThompson, @IDL, @Palis, @Thurisaz, @snakedafunky, @Bald1

    Okay guys, the two days of free exchange are up. Snakedafunky, you may ask up to 3 specific questions for Thurisaz to answer. Please feel free to ask them in long form with supporting text. After Thurisaz responds, it will be his turn to ask you questions.


    Judges/audience/others, if you have questions for the participants, please pm them to me. We may ask the participants additional questions after their next exchange.
     
    #60
    Limbo Pete likes this.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "fd5733925866a04e50edd70f38dfaa35"
monitoring_string = "603ac9fff68f23709f2a42bf5e29272b"