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

[Lord Commander Palis]

Because nationalism by defintion is coupled with forced isolation and forced isolation only generates mistrust with neighbours and an instance where there is nothing to lose by breaking up relationships.

Oh yeah because we all have such great relationships right now with our neighbors lol.

Mexico and USA are really great friends, bigly!

 

[HomerThompson]

Oh yeah because we all have such great relationships right now with our neighbors lol.

Mexico and USA are really great friends, bigly!

Your depth of understanding of diplomacy and foreign policy is suboptimal.

 

[Rod1]

Oh yeah because we all have such great relationships right now with our neighbors lol.

Mexico and USA are really great friends, bigly!

We have one of the largest trade relationships in the world and we havent been at war for over a century.

Compared to what you see in other countries? yes.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

We have one of the largest trade relationships in the world and we havent been at war for over a century.

Compared to what you see in other countries? yes.

We could keep trade and not kill each other with Nationalism. Stop being basic

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Your depth of understanding of diplomacy and foreign policy is suboptimal.

 

[Rod1]

We could keep trade and not kill each other with Nationalism. Stop being basic

Except trade tends to erode a national identity, which is the basis of nationalism, culture, way of life, independence, thus isolation.

I dont think the US or Mexico shouldnt even be in the same debate as Europe since neither the US or Mexico were founded on a national identity.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Except trade tends to erode a national identity, which is the basis of nationalism, culture, way of life, independence, thus isolation.

I dont think the US or Mexico shouldnt even be in the same debate as Europe since neither the US or Mexico were founded on a national identity.

Everyone and everything has an identity. It is what is done with that identity that matters. Nationalism goes a bit deeper and is how a nation is kept alive during certain time periods and conditions.

 

[IDL]

@IDL

Thats a bad premise because the world at large is under the period of Pax Americana and the threat of nuclear war.

You can rest assured that if America retreated back to isolationism and Monroe Doctrine and nukes were out of the picture, then war would certainly become an issue in the vast majority of Asia and Africa.

It is about European nationalism, and it is in contrast to globalism really.

You could argue that if the US empire retreated (thus creating a power vacuum) that this could lead to a new sort of large conflict on the world stage, in which case more power to a European government could become more useful. That is a factor, but it would apply to all nations really.

Also it is relative. What a rise in nationalism in modern day context in Europe represents is essentially a push back to the larger power consolidation represented by postnationalism and the undermining of the nations and sovereignty.

Thurisaz had this as a primary component to his argument.

I would agree though, that one of the benefits of empire in general is that it brings a stability on the macro level, and a certain degree of international government is desirable for this reason.

Too much power in that direction brings its own set of problems though, and also the devil is in the details.

It's a sort of tug-a-war between nationalism and globalism and a shift in one direction or another is a step in one direction or the other, not a complete slide in the binary sense. More of finding a balance.

So the premise I don't think is sturdy is that a shift towards nationalism within the context of Europe means a world war scenario or a major conflict of the sort. By the same reasoning, nationalism anywhere on the planet leads to this also. I don't think that is a good argument because nationalism does exist all over the place already, and in higher levels then what is currently in Europe (especially considering Europe is more post-national than most if not all places)

 

[Thurisaz]

I would agree though, that one of the benefits of empire in general is that it brings a stability on the macro level, and a certain degree of international government is desirable for this reason.

Empires collapse. That's what they do, because different peoples have different objectives and approaches to life and thus will not play by the same rules. It is an enormous waste of resources trying to keep together that which won't.

Empires do not bring stability. They bring a pressure cooker to ethnic conflicts, ensuring that when shit happens it really hits the fan. Nations, on the other hand, are relatively stable, keeping practically the same people in the same area for centuries if not millennia.

 

[Rod1]

So the premise I don't think is sturdy is that a shift towards nationalism within the context of Europe means a world war scenario or a major conflict of the sort. By the same reasoning, nationalism anywhere on the planet leads to this also. I don't think that is a good argument because nationalism does exist all over the place already, and in higher levels then what is currently in Europe (especially considering Europe is more post-national than most if not all places)

Not necesarily a world war scenario but the risk of war does increases dramatically, the premise of happening anywhere is faulty, since as i said, there was nobody to stop Europeans going to war, while there are powers that stop others from going to war.

Globalism doesnt necesarily has to be a one powerful government, it could simply be more economic integration or a federalistic style alliance.

 

[Rod1]

Empires collapse. That's what they do, because different peoples have different objectives and approaches to life and thus will not play by the same rules. It is an enormous waste of resources trying to keep together that which won't.

Empires do not bring stability. They bring a pressure cooker to ethnic conflicts, ensuring that when shit happens it really hits the fan. Nations, on the other hand, are relatively stable, keeping practically the same people in the same area for centuries if not millennia.

Nations are anything but stable.

And i think America is the prime example of a great non-ethnic empire or federal republic that has managed to avoid civil war or collapse.

 

[lecter]

Every user who changes his avatar should be permanently banned, it's so annoying.

 

[lecter]

And i think America is the prime example of a great non-ethnic empire or federal republic that has managed to avoid civil war

Yeah wait until Trump wins in 2020

 

[GalegoREB]

Why is an American debating European politics? He obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, it's like a virgin talking about sex.

 

[Rod1]

Yeah wait until Trump wins in 2020

Liberals will do nothing and right-wingers are just going to keep bitching about a deep state.

 

[IDL]

Empires collapse. That's what they do, because different peoples have different objectives and approaches to life and thus will not play by the same rules. It is an enormous waste of resources trying to keep together that which won't.

Empires do not bring stability. They bring a pressure cooker to ethnic conflicts, ensuring that when shit happens it really hits the fan. Nations, on the other hand, are relatively stable, keeping practically the same people in the same area for centuries if not millennia.

Yeah I was actually thinking about this and I agree that there is an aspect of instability with empires. So they can both bring stability (uniting of the tribes under one rule) and also create instability (maintaining power over the tribes isn't always easy and exercising power creates pushback)

I think that a big reason for why in the modern day, empire is pushing multiculturism and dissolution of nation is to eliminate the ability for resistance to international rule. Rather than relying on the uniting of the tribes, dissolving the tribes over the long run makes that inherent problem go away permanently.

 

[IDL]

Not necesarily a world war scenario but the risk of war does increases dramatically, the premise of happening anywhere is faulty, since as i said, there was nobody to stop Europeans going to war, while there are powers that stop others from going to war.

Globalism doesnt necesarily has to be a one powerful government, it could simply be more economic integration or a federalistic style alliance.

There are powers that stop others from going to war (and increased economic ties) today, and this applies to all nations. I still am not sure how your point applies to only Europe, unless you are applying it to all nations?

European nations are more postnational already than anywhere else.

I do acknowledge that an increase in nationalism (from its current level) in Europe could in theory increase the competition between the nations, since it would mean the people would focus more on their own nations competitiveness, and also distinctness. That they would likely go to war with each other doesn't follow though IMO. Anything is possible though I suppose, but the same could be said with an increased postnational Europe. They could go to war with any other entity outside of Europe, and also could create civil strife by pushing their power over Europe too hard.

 

[Thurisaz]

I think that a big reason for why in the modern day, empire is pushing multiculturism and dissolution of nation is to eliminate the ability for resistance to international rule. Rather than relying on the uniting of the tribes, dissolving the tribes over the long run makes that inherent problem go away permanently.

Yep, that's the plan Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed and the globalists try enforcing. Ain't gonna happen - those folks really do not understand genetics any more than they understand human nature.

 

[electricfuneral]

Very cool that trade is being discussed so much here.