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

Fawlty said:
@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.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I don't have any questions.
We can move on direct to Thurisaz questions and others.

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


Also for the organisers from Today until Saturday we have the public holiday Songkran here in Thailand.
I won't be at the office (that's my Sherdog time) again until Sunday. I will still answer questions when available. It might just take a bit longer.
I will also get hammered because its Songkran for anyone that doesn't know what it is:


I am off to the bars right now :).
 
Thanks for letting us know, have a good time dude.
 
My three questions:

1) I happen to believe that Nationalism, writ large, means advocacy for a sovereign state for each nation. That's the common goal, even if the means to that end may take various forms. I am not alone in my opinion, as every Nationalist I've encountered anywhere subscribes to the same guiding principle (along with the Alt-Right, as I've already shown). Thus it is not French supremacism and certainly not Teutonic supremacism, whose doctrines are directly opposed to the goals of Nationalism. Every Nationalist I've ever encountered is primarily concerned with ensuring that their people exist as a nation with a state a 100 years from now as that future is being actively undermined by third world mass immigration. All Nationalist concerns I've seen are entirely domestic. Thus the obvious question: Why do you think nationalism leads necessarily to wars between separate nations? I stress "Because it has already happened" is a statement of what happened, not why, which is what I'm asking here.

2) There's copious evidence of myriad ethnic cleansings throughout history and ethnic strife appears to be the one problem that is simply impossible to prevent with anything other than separating the peoples involved. As you keep repeating, you think nationalism sprung up practically ex nihilo in the aftermath of the French revolution and has no meaningful history beyond that point whatsoever, and that mentioning tribal instinct in this context is a category error. If you're right, how come there became different nations and peoples in the first place?

3) Your case is that the rise of Nationalism in Europe is a bad thing and you keep giving various forms of argumentum ad hitlerum to back it up. However, I have provided 12 strong reasons that explain why Nationalism is preferable to any of its alternatives. If Nationalism is bad, do you have an alternative that isn't significantly worse in every conceivable aspect?

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

Edit. I'll add @Ruprecht to the list, mainly to provide some insight to my thinking on these subjects. He is of the ridiculously ignorant opinion that I am a racist and reading my input on this thread might cure him of that misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
Dammits, it appears my questions were a mortal blow. I underestimated the impact my intellect had.

Please, someone, sweep the floor before the whole WR starts to stink.
 
Thurisaz said:
Dammits, it appears my questions were a mortal blow. I underestimated the impact my intellect had.

Please, someone, sweep the floor before the whole WR starts to stink.
Click to expand...
Snake will be back on Sunday. This debate still has legs, I'd say.
 
Thurisaz said:
Dammits, it appears my questions were a mortal blow. I underestimated the impact my intellect had.

Please, someone, sweep the floor before the whole WR starts to stink.
Click to expand...
Alright, I lold irl
 
Thurisaz said:
1) I happen to believe that Nationalism, writ large, means advocacy for a sovereign state for each nation. That's the common goal, even if the means to that end may take various forms. I am not alone in my opinion, as every Nationalist I've encountered anywhere subscribes to the same guiding principle (along with the Alt-Right, as I've already shown). Thus it is not French supremacism and certainly not Teutonic supremacism, whose doctrines are directly opposed to the goals of Nationalism. Every Nationalist I've ever encountered is primarily concerned with ensuring that their people exist as a nation with a state a 100 years from now as that future is being actively undermined by third world mass immigration. All Nationalist concerns I've seen are entirely domestic. Thus the obvious question: Why do you think nationalism leads necessarily to wars between separate nations? I stress "Because it has already happened" is a statement of what happened, not why, which is what I'm asking here.
Click to expand...

Because the Nationalism you believe in is a Theoretic concept you read somewhere on a website. It would be like discussing the theory of communism
And completely ignoring what communism is when put into real life. No one would make an argument to bring back communism.

That is not how the world works the same way we know what communism is we also know what The Rise of Nationalism in Europe is.
There is no "guiding principle" in Nationalism in Europe. It is a real thing its a very complicated and complex issue.
Not 12 points from a website.

I assume you have never encountered a German Nationalist? Because German Nationalism will for the next centuries always be tied to the 3rd Reich and/or
the idea of a Prussian authoritarian state. So now you have the largest factor when it comes to the Rise of Nationalism in Europe being tied to Nazi ideology or Prussian military mentality.
And those two are simply not peaceful.
A Nationalist Germany will not be peaceful they only care to establish a great German Reich.

You also have to consider the history and economic factors to see why a Nationalistic Europe can't be peaceful. To many nation and people make a claim of the same territory.
Now throwing out some theoretical ideology like you do won't all of a sudden stop those.
We already know what Nationalism will cause. It will cause war. And we already know what will work to fix it.

Thurisaz said:
2) There's copious evidence of myriad ethnic cleansings throughout history and ethnic strife appears to be the one problem that is simply impossible to prevent with anything other than separating the peoples involved. As you keep repeating, you think nationalism sprung up practically ex nihilo in the aftermath of the French revolution and has no meaningful history beyond that point whatsoever, and that mentioning tribal instinct in this context is a category error. If you're right, how come there became different nations and peoples in the first place?
Click to expand...

We have already found a cure against ethnic cleansing and war in Europe. It's taking steps towards a post-Nationalistic Europe.
Like you point out we always had ethnic cleansing until 1945 when we took steps towards a post nationalistic world.

We developed into nations. The main factor was that people always got closer together and lived in larger groups.
Now how they came to be in the larger group might varies for some Nations such as marriage or war.

But in general, this is how it went.

At the beginning, different families/small tribes fought each other until they realised maybe not fighting each other but trading and having political institution together might be better.
That is how we developed into tribes. Now different tribes fought each other until they realised maybe not fighting each other but trading and having political institution together might be better.
That is how we developed into Kingdoms. Now different Kingdoms fought each other until they realised maybe not fighting each other but trading and having political institution together might be better.
That is how we got different Nations. After 1945 we simply did the natural development humans always did. Maybe not fighting each other but trading and having political institution together might be better.

You would have to believe our political development stopped sometime in the 19th century. And that the Rise of Nationalism in Europe was the last and final political development.
That, of course, is stupid humans have always developed and come closer together.
Now there is certainly criticism some could bring forward to how fast we approach this post nationalistic world and that we might include nations that are not ready yet.
But the main idea for Europe to come closer together is simply a natural step humans have ever done.
If that would not be true we would all still be living in small tribes.

Thurisaz said:
3) Your case is that the rise of Nationalism in Europe is a bad thing and you keep giving various forms of argumentum ad hitlerum to back it up. However, I have provided 12 strong reasons that explain why Nationalism is preferable to any of its alternatives. If Nationalism is bad, do you have an alternative that isn't significantly worse in every conceivable aspect?
Click to expand...

No, my point was clear from my very first post. A Rise of Nationalism will put us back into a pre-1945 area.

The time we live in right now is significantly better by any conceivable aspect. You think that your theoretical points will cause sovereign states were you can happily live with your people and everything will be roses. And people will just magically live in peace and respect sovereign nations.

That of course could not be further from the truth. It's actually bizarre to think that would happen.
You won't be living in some White Europe Utopia. You will be lying dead in the snow somewhere 300 km south of Moscow.
That seems to be the spot where a lot of Nationalist end up.

@Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty
 
You've got a closing statement to make, too. As it is not my turn, I won't comment on your stuff now until I give mine.
 
Good stuff.

I don't want to derail, but I think both posters missed a key part of the argument.

I do think one side has a big advantage at this moment.
 
My opponent simply misjudged what The Rise of Nationalism in Europe means. He assumed he can just copy and paste some theoretical talking points from the American Alt right or some website.
And think that somehow relates to the Rise of Nationalism in Europe or reality. Of course, that is a pure delusion.

The Rise of Nationalism in Europe was influenced by people like Napoleon, Wilhelm the 2nd, Franz-Josef the 1st, Otto von Bismark,
David Lloyd George, Paul von Hindenburg, Stalin, Churchill, Charle de Gaulle and of course Adolf Hilter. The most researched people in history.

And my opponent tries to argue with a maybe decade old American political movement the alt right or some random stuff about nations or tribalism he read on a website.
The most influential people in that movement are 400LBS guys living in their mum's basement trolling on 4chan that can't get a girlfriend.
Just to illustrate how incredibly bizarre this is.
A homosexual Jew from the UK can be part of the American Alt right. Just think for a moment what would happen if a homosexual
Jew from the UK shows up at a Nationalist meeting in Germany, Poland or Belgium.

The Rise of Nationalism in Europe will always be racist. Now that might vary from "I don't like people that are not from my small European region".
But it also goes all the way to Auschwitz and anything in between.
Of course, you can argue for some kind of theoretical American Nationalism that has nothing to do with Europe or the Rise of Nationalism in Europe or reality in front of your Computer.
But the Rise of Nationalism in Europe is very real. And I am sure my opponent would feel a lot different about the Rise of Nationalism in Europe if he were a minority and the GESTAPO comes looking for him.
And don't get fooled by this stupid no go zone argument from an Alt-Right American delusion. You know what was a no go area for French people during the Rise of Nationalism between 1940-1944?

France.

My argument was clear from start to finish.
The Rise of Nationalism in Europe would put us back into a pre-1945 era. With horrible wars and genocides.
I based that on the fact that since countries who took steps towards a post-nationalist world had no wars or genocides.

I have made a clear case of why The Rise of Nationalism in Europe is not a good thing, backed up with historical facts and present day realities.
With geographic, cultural, mentality and linguistic facts with the Example of Nationalism in Austria-Germany-Hungary.
The only way I can not be declared the winner is if you think going back to a time of horrendous wars, genocides, racism is better than today's situation.

Let's not forget the horrific battles fought due to the Rise of Nationalism in Europe. Millions of young man killing each other over differences we now know do not need fighting over.
We are perfectly able to solve our issues peacefully in Europe. If we are just willing to move towards a post nationalistic world.

Battles caused by the Rise of Nationalism in Europe.
Battle of Verdun 976,000 total casualties
Battle of the Somme 1,219,201 total casualties
Hundred Days Offensive 1,855,369 total casualties
Battle of Berlin 1,298,745 total casualties
Stalingrad 1,250,000 total casualties
Siege of Leningrad 4,500,000 total casualties

Those are the kind of events a Rise of Nationalism in Europe will bring back.
The only real life exposure my opponent's theoretical American alt right Nationalism ever had was the horrific Berkeley riots of 2017 Total casualties: a bunch of people got their feelings hurt.
It simply does not relate to the Rise of Nationalism in Europe or reality.

I repeat the last sentence from my first post here because my argument was the same in my very first post.

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
 
Take this stuff somewhere else. This isn't the time and place man.
 
Bald1 said:
Take this stuff somewhere else. This isn't the time and place man.
Click to expand...

Ok I see the guys posts have been removed.
Now it looks a bit like I have something against Polish or Eastern Europeans.
When in fact, I tried to make exactly a point for us living in harmony and peace.
:)
 
snakedafunky said:
Ok I see the guys posts have been removed.
Now it looks a bit like I have something against Polish or Eastern Europeans.
When in fact, I tried to make exactly a point for us living in harmony and peace.
:)
Click to expand...
No comment until the debate is over.

Until then I'll just assume you both love everyone equally, as there's no evidence to the contrary. Yes. Love. Equally. Lalalllaaallla laaa
 
Bald1 said:
No comment until the debate is over.

Until then I'll just assume you both love everyone equally, as there's no evidence to the contrary. Yes. Love. Equally. Lalalllaaallla laaa
Click to expand...

Yeah, just as a sort of thing I have noticed. A lot of guys talk a big game here.
Let's only have guy's comment on a debate that had one already. Because they probably would like it to be fair.
The biggest trouble makers are the ones not willing to debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,699
Messages
55,435,777
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top