The conclusive
coup de grace. I hope you, dear reader, enjoy, for my opponent won't.
My opponent is entirely wrong on the very nature of Nationalism. I quote
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Although the term “nationalism” has a variety of meanings, it centrally encompasses the two phenomena noted at the outset: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their identity as members of that nation and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take in seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty (see for example, Nielsen 1998–9, 9).
Boom. It also just so happens to be the very definition I have been using the whole time and applied consistently to all nations and peoples and one my opponent denies having basis in nothing else than American web sites. But those two things are what every Nationalist anywhere subscribes to. No supremacist claims, no racism or Lebensraum doctrines, nothing such is included in Nationalism. The case that Nationalism means, and only can mean, the sort derived from the French revolution and Nazis is simply and utterly bullshit.
I am quite happy about my input on the subject. I made a strong case for Nationalism in Europe (and, indeed, everywhere) and every one of my arguments for it still stand
entirely unchallenged. I’ve shown that Nationalism is not only rooted firmly in the very DNA of the human animal, but also sound philosophy that serves the best interest of every people. My opponent’s hapless flailing at history repeating itself makes no sense in current situation – and as I’ve shown it makes no sense in the context of Nationalism at all. His arguments were few and not once but twice he managed to refute his own argument which he presented against European Nationalism and the way it’s defined. Even though those self-refuting comments of his are hardly in the crux of the matter at hand, they do reveal the lack of substance and consistency in my opponent’s position. He has more an attitude than an argument.
His attempts at arguing his side consist of two approaches: the first is to deny that we’re talking about anything of relevance in the last 80 years. I consider that a dishonest approach to the subject, considering the above definition and the fact that we’ve witnessed recently the rise of nationalism in Europe (and the US, to some extent) in both attitudes and party platforms. The pendulum is definitely swinging toward nationalism, but somehow all my opponent considers relevant are supremacist anti-Nationalist ideologies at least three generations separated from our day. I consider that a cop-out and a dishonest one at that. His other approach was to hurl adjectives, giving nothing of substance to the table. A debate is about the subject at hand and one does not accomplish anything by talking only about his personal disdain towards one’s opponent’s arguments. If he considers taking on arguments so much beneath him, he should not have taken part in the debate in the first place. Also, if he was honest about not having seen me refer to historical events directly after my mentioning the peaceful separation of Czechoslovakia he’s also very ignorant about recent history. I got the impression that he was trying to play a moderator more than an opponent and instead of addressing any of my arguments he simply ruled them out like they weren't there.
His answers to my questions were more than a bit lackluster. The first one was precisely the answer I emphasized I didn't ask for. I understand that when you have only one argument and even that is rooted in attitude instead of facts this is what one gets, but still, I would have expected a cogent thought or two. The second one was more of an answer to my third question, though a bad one, considering that Europe is in a steep demographic and economic crisis and currently under population replacement from the third world. It also revealed that he doesn't know what a nation even is nor understands what I asked for. To answer my question he would have needed to explain
why people fought each other, while dismissing the tribal mindset as he already did. He sort of answered my third question in his second answer, but sadly could not provide any reason to consider the ongoing slow European suicide a better alternative than a healthy mindset that would ensure the existence of indigenous Europeans and European societies in the future.
His argument is like stating that a scientist in the 1900s gets the same exact results as one of today and that no changes in either method, knowledge base or anything else has happened or can ever happen. He has a bogeyman in his head that has him flailing at windmills. He claims having backed his claim up with historical facts and present day realities. He has, for sure, mentioned historical facts, but omitted the quite pertinent fact that
neither German National Socialism nor Napoleon was Nationalist. Nations are not empires, as I pointed out in my initial post. Napoleon and the NSDAP were thoroughly imperialist and strongly opposed to sovereign nation states. As for the present day realities he claims to have shown I have seen crickets, and for my side mentioned the crisis Europe is currently in and also why Nationalism is the only answer that doesn't necessarily involve civil war throughout every state in the West. For some reason he seems to be happy about the fact that European populations are being attacked by foreigners all the time in their own countries, but can't possibly even consider the possibility that it could result in a backlash, which, as I pointed out, is inevitable and only preventable through Nationalist policies.
I came to this debate to test the strength of my arguments pro Nationalism. All I learned was that my opponent can’t help me with that. While he has been civil throughout, and for that matter, so have I, I’d be a liar if I didn’t admit feeling very underwhelmed by the reluctance of my opponent to even try engaging my case for Nationalism in Europe with arguments of his own. When I could have easily made a more substantive case against my position than my opponent did, I simply conclude that I will have to dust the shelf and make room for another skull there. This debate was over after his initial post revealed that he has absolutely no answers to anything I posted, only posturing and flat out denial of facts and arguments based on them.
@Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty