Nationalist spergs: why do you do it?

[Hellbound Hellhound]

I think the main reason nationalism persists is that globalization hasn't yet found a way to give the masses a political voice, nor an inspiring vision for them to unify around. The economic, political, and technological benefits to globalization are obvious, but the lack of a uniting political force capable of breaking down the various ethnic, linguistic, and class differences across the globe continues to be a major limiting factor in convincing the people to get on board with it.

 

[Black Waltz]

because niggers

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

I just want a country where everything is ordered and people march past in nice clothes designed by Hugo Boss driving top notch killing machines.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

because niggers

What about white niggers?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Take the United States for example. Sure, I'm a proud citizen of said country, but that doesn't mean Nigeria or France are any worse or better, as they likely feel the same about their own nations and believe they have their own unique virtues as well, and who am I to shit on that?

I find this train of thought so odd and intellectually dishonest.

Why prevent yourself from allowing to make comparisons based on what you know and preffering one over the other?

It's possible for one to have unique virtues, but still the other to be vastly superior on a number of metrics. It really baffles me and looks like a kind of self-induced barriers of wrong-think.

 

[QI 541]

Here's how I see what is happening. Kiwifarms was mostly left-leaning, with only mild moderation. Because of the open stance towards moderation and the increasing moderation across the web, it becomes a haven to people that are have been rejected elsewhere or have chosen to reject communicating under uneven speech laws.

This gives more and more right wing refugees, as most censorship is towards different right-wing values. The fact that you put something mild like nationalism under that banner is emblematic. I would have thought it was over things like anti-tranny, anti-gay or race realism things. You put nationalism in the list of unacceptable ideas?

Funny how kiwifarms went from liberals to alt-right around at the same time Chris-chan went from religious nutjob to tranny SJW.

 

[crocodilian]

Then why are you here, exactly?

To be an antisemitic white supremacist.

 

[Miss Misery]

Three pages in and no one has referenced ZOG yet? KF's infiltration is far from complete I guess.

 

[GethN7]

I find this train of thought so odd and intellectually dishonest.

Why prevent yourself from allowing to make comparisons based on what you know and preffering one over the other?

It's possible for one to have unique virtues, but still the other to be vastly superior on a number of metrics. It really baffles me and looks like a kind of self-induced barriers of wrong-think.

Fair enough, I'll elaborate, that did come off as a bit shallowly put.

Let's say, as an American, I think I'm in the nation with the best political system ever, but that's my take as an American, I'd be inherently biased.

Now let's take someone from France who feels the same way about their country's political framework being kickass.

Let's say we meet and disagree on the other guy's opinion on the subject.

In that case, fine, we disagree, but if the French person is happy under their nation's political system despite my disagreement, then I'm happy for them despite my personal take on it, because at the end of the day, I don't have to live under it, they do.

And if they are happy, I'm happy they are happy.

And that goes for everything. Sure, I have my own takes on other nations and I'm not shy in admitting it, but I have that luxury since I don't have to live in them, but the people who do, well, if they think I'm full of shit and are pleased with what their nation does despite me, well, so be it.

 

[Meat Poultry Veg]

Though I consider myself of the Right, I do not think that Nationalism is the end-all, be-all of opposition to globalism.

Here are a few of trenchant observations of Nationalism's limitations. While Bruce Charlton may be little nutty, when he's not talking about Mormonism and Rudolf Steiner he is amazingly on point:

Spoiler: Iceland Refutes Nationalism

source: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2019/05/iceland-refutes-nationalism.html

I went to Iceland 20 years ago, and became fascinated by the place such that I read about 40 books and read the online Iceland Review for a couple of years.

It seemed an unique place - almost every person was descended from the Viking settlement, almost everybody was related to everybody else and knew the exact degree of their relatedness. They have their unique language and a great literature - even in the 1990s the sagas were still a matter of everyday discussion. The population was about 270,000 and it was like a single extended family. It seemed to me that the future of Iceland's culture was assured, and that Icelanders would surely look after themselves - why not?

Well, it hasn't happened, Iceland has gone the way of everywhere else - just as bad as if they had been in the European Union. Their fertility rate is below replacement levels, yet the population has been bloated by the nations first significant immigration for hundreds of years - coming from all over the place - new arrivals will soon amount to 15% of the population. The population of this little island has increased by a staggering 25-30 percent - entirely from recent migrants.

Thus Iceland refutes nationalism. There couldn't be anywhere in the developed world that was more strongly nationalist than Iceland 20 years ago, that was more conducive to nationalism, and that had more cohesion. Iceland was among the wealthiest countries in the world, per capita; and had every imaginable reason to remain distinct and separate.

None of that made any difference whatsoever - Iceland are exactly as bad as everywhere else. Ergo Nationalism Is Useless. It's a waste of time. Forget it.

What is missing? Religion of course. Having abandoned Christianity (like everywhere else in The West) Iceland is destroying itself - strategically, purposefully, moralistically (like everywhere else in The West).

Man cannot live without religion, because without religion Man has no reason to live. The evidence is all around us - but our Godless assumptions render evidence ineffectual.

We will incrementally destroy ourselves unless we get religion, and the getting of religion must come first - because you couldn't get a more deep-rooted, biologically and culturally-based nationalism than Iceland - and it made No Difference At All.

Spoiler: The two faces of modern nationalism

source: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-two-faces-of-modern-nationalism.html

I've written a lot about nationalism over the past decade, because it seems that far too many people have pinned their hopes on it in the belief that nationalism is a way-out from the incremental suicide of The West... It is not.

Nationalism is far too feeble a motivator in Western societies here and now; it amounts to little more than a lifestyle choice. And indeed nationalism has historically only been a strong motivator very temporarily, and for the first post-religious generation after Christianity was abandoned.

In our modern West, nationalism has two different faces -

1. Secular Nationalists/ Christian Nationalists

2. Nationalist Christians

The distinction is between those for whom nationalism is the bottom line - and who may be also be mainstream atheists, or Christians - or indeed neo-pagans; and those for whom Christianity is the bottom line. (In this respect is does not matter much whether the nationalists are secular, Christian or pagan - because their motivations are not religious; hence their motivations are inevitably feeble.)

In this modern world, all those for whom religion is Not the priority are all in the same category, which is: demotivated and doomed.

And on the other hand, those for whom Christianity is the bottom line, and whose nationalism appears within that context, are qualitatively different. A genuinely religious perspective is (almost always) an absolute requirement for a coherent (hence courageous) life.

Only when a (first) devoutly religious Christian (secondarily) becomes a nationalist, is nationalism given a solid base in motivation hence courage.

And only such nationalism is Good nationalism. Nationalism that is not rooted in religion is merely a variant of mainstream hedonic materialism - it is just a difference of opinion about which groups should be favoured by The System.

And for a Christian, it is mainstream hedonic materialism that is the primary enemy, the primary evil, the 'Ahrimanic' demonic side of our pervasive spiritual war.

And in that war, those who are primarily-nationalists are on the wrong side; even when they are not quite so bad as the globalist left.


Note added. Secular Nationalists will complain that all the mainstream Christian Churches are corrupted by Leftism (which is true); but they therefore decide not to have anything to do with Christianity. Yet these same people regard all the mainstream Political Parties as corrupted by Leftism (which is true) but in this instance, instead of having nothing to do with politics; they instead decide to expend considerable time, effort, resources in reading and thinking about Nationalism, trying to develop a more-correct political philosophy - and perhaps even working upon a new and less-corrupt Political Party. If someone was reallyserious about Christianity, he would not regard his relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ to be restricted and determined by the range of possibilities that happen to be offered by his current local churches. A serious Christian would put at least as much effort into developing a true personal faith in the face of (despite) church decline/ corruption/ treachery, as a serious Nationalist puts effort into following blogs, debating issues, reading magazines and texts, attending meetings, canvassing votes and planning direct actions. Our revealed preferences, our actual choices, show our underlying lack of seriousness about religion. For modern Man, the feeblest excuse is sufficient to give up entirely on Christianity. For example, many are eager to find an excuse to eject Christian faith because it constrains their sexual gratification. Instead of becoming a Christian outside any church; such eagerly declare themselves morally disgusted by 'the whole Christian thing', and promiscuously embrace whatever forbidden sexual practices happen to appeal under cover of 'right wing' idealistic nationalism.

Spoiler: Primary political?

source: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2019/05/primarily-political-politics-versus.html
Building on the point made in yesterday's post; it could be said that the majority of Westerners are primarily political in their motivation - and in this group are mostly those who are atheistically-political, but also a range of people who are religiously-political (with a variety of religions and denominations).

It might be asked: What is wrong with being primarily political? The answer is that it does not work as a strategy for life - because it is insufficiently motivating. This can be seen everywhere in the developed world among all groups that have abandoned religion as their core value system.

This is evidence that being primarily political does not work, anywhere or among any group, as a long-term strategy for human living. That seems to be a fact - for what its worth - which is not much, since one aspect of being primarily political is a denial of facts. Since, the more political a person, group or nation becomes; the less concerned they are about reality - and all genuine facts derive from a knowledge of reality.

Of course, this is the opposite of what the primarily political say - they say that it is religion which distorts and denies reality and facts; and in support they will provide a great litany of falsehoods and distortions... (such as the myth of Galileo).

Why? because religion (taken as primary) can and should be about reality; while politics (taken as primary) can only be about 'psychology' - can only be (at bottom line) about how people think, feel, are made happy or miserable etc - and one thing we all learn is that how a person or group thinks, feels and is happy of miserable is labile and incoherent. Politics is as incoherent as its bottom line in human emotions.

Jumping ahead several steps - my point is that a world in which politics is primary, and in which people operate on a basis of being primarily political, will be a demotivated world in the medium to long term.

Almost anything can be made or become a strong motivator in the short term (sex, for example; but also any of the many carrots and sticks of the modern mass media, any of the incentives of a modern employer...) - but not many things work as motivators in the medium to long term; not many things are able to provide strong and strategic motivation.

In fact there is is one thing that can provide a strong and strategic motivation - and that is religion, and furthermore only some religions.

But we live in times when almost all religions (for one reason or another, or for several reasons) fail to provide a ready-mademotivation.

Past generations could usually choose to go along with - become motivated by - a strong, local, social religion. these are pretty much destroyed, and usually corrupted to be primarily political - hence not-motivating.

Therefore (as I understand things):

1. We must become primarily religious - or else our motivation will be too feeble to live; and we will in practice pursue a life of short termist pleasure seeking, long termist suicide.

2. We must put in considerable individual work on our religion- we must actively do for our-selves most of what was (in the past) passively absorbed from already-existing religious institutions.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

I find this train of thought so odd and intellectually dishonest.

Why prevent yourself from allowing to make comparisons based on what you know and preffering one over the other?

It's possible for one to have unique virtues, but still the other to be vastly superior on a number of metrics. It really baffles me and looks like a kind of self-induced barriers of wrong-think.

Let it never be forgotten that the ability to discriminate is one of the foundations of thought. Some things are bigger, heavier, shinier, faggier, etc. than others. Of course, basing value judgements on these distinctions can get a little dicey but I'd say my home nation is objectively better than France and Nigeria in the sense that we don't have bi-annual terrorist attacks. Also, it's not in Europe or Africa so there's that, as well.

 

[GethN7]

Let it never be forgotten that the ability to discriminate is one of the foundations of thought. Some things are bigger, heavier, shinier, faggier, etc. than others. Of course, basing value judgements on these distinctions can get a little dicey but I'd say my home nation is objectively better than France and Nigeria in the sense that we don't have bi-annual terrorist attacks. Also, it's not in Europe or Africa so there's that, as well.

That's a fair opinion, and I'd agree with you as an American, but that just goes back to my point: Nationalism is great until you let it make you think a nation is inherently inferior to your own and thus their national pride does not deserve your respect if not agreement.

Let's take Somalia back when they decided to be a completely failed state. Practically every nation in the world had some advantage over it in terms of not sucking, even places like North Korea could at least say they had a government that generally functioned as intended in all the basic areas that mattered.

At the same time, what about the people who stayed there, even if they had a choice and the means to leave despite it being an utter shithole? If they can find something to love about it despite Somalia once being an utter free for all of pure anarchy that was a failure to function at every level, then why look down on them?

For all I know, they LOVED living in a place where it was IRL Fallout at best, and if that gave them a reason to stay and like it despite everything, then fine, I respect that even if I don't concur.

Nationalism turns into shit when you take such wonderful things like "Lebensraum" or "Manifest Destiny" to convince yourself your nation is so awesome all others can be swatted aside and replaced with your own, and if anyone disagrees, it's the dissenters who are wrong, not you.

That's when nationalism quits being inspiring and starts turning arrogant and depraved, especially if you decide the dissenters deserve genocide for their disagreement.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

That's a fair opinion, and I'd agree with you as an American, but that just goes back to my point: Nationalism is great until you let make you think a nation is inherently inferior to your own and thus their national pride does not deserve your respect if not agreement.
...
That's when nationalism quits being inspiring and starts turning arrogant and depraved, especially if you decide the dissenters deserve genocide for their disagreement.

No disagreement here; it would be crazy and authoritarian to try to enforce our value judgements on other people, but I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with trying to artfully persuade somebody else of my point of view. I can think that my nation is greater than another and still respect the national pride of others; I respect people who respect themselves and that includes at the national level. That wouldn't necessarily compel my agreement with their opinion, but respect is more valuable than agreement in my books.

As for trying to force my nation's values on other people; that's a big no-go for me. They have every right to do what they want in their own home nation and it's none of my concern or responsibility to worry about it, but the inverse is also true; I don't think they have any right to concern themselves with my business, as long as I'm not harming them, naturally. In fact, I'd say that a facet of Nationalism is having that respect for other Nations; otherwise you're just a Globalist for your own pet cause.

Finally, if you start up a genocide or a campaign of forced international assimilation to your values you're obviously a monster.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

To be an antisemitic white supremacist.

I'd advise you go do that on, say, Stormfront instead of deliberately shitting up other places (to be clear, I don't care if you're an antisemetic WN on this board even if I find your beliefs reprehensible: my problem is people dragging their political hobby-horse into every thread).

 

[Spunt]

Nationalism is dumb. It's the belief that your country is great just because you were born in it.

I'm from the UK, but I have no sense of patriotism or pride towards it. I'm not proud to be British because Britain fucking sucks. It's incompetently governed, too expensive to live in and full of absolute cunts. Those things could change, then the UK would be a better place to live. If that happened I'd be happier about the place where I live, but I don't feel any obligation to be "proud" of it.

In fact being "proud" of the country of your birth (or your ethnic ancestry for that matter) is a really fucking weird idea. "Pride" is something you would normally reserve for something you personally achieved, or at least had some part in. I'm not "proud" of being British, and I wouldn't even if the UK was the best place on Earth, because I can't claim credit for that. Any more than I should feel "ashamed" for the various awful things the British Empire did. I wasn't responsible for anything "Britain" or the "Anglo Saxons" did because I had no hand in any of it. I just popped into existence on this patch of Earth one day. I'm certainly interested in the history of my country and my people, those people and what they did created the place I live in and its place in the world. But there's no moral connection there, I cannot take credit for their achievements or blame for their mistakes.

Remember, if you think you can take credit for the achievements of your country or your "race", that means you are personally responsible for their mistakes too. Funny how "patriots" are suddenly "it's nothing to do with me, it was all in the past" when slavery reparations are mentioned. Thus are the dangers of identity politics.

The fact I was born here was a statistical accident. I think I may be in a minority by not feeling any attachment to my home country (if I could speak the language better I'd move to Germany, which had always struck me as being very much like Britain culturally but with less misery), but I could never understand it on any rational level. It's also a barrier to progress. Places like Portugal, Singapore and Australia have much better health systems, by any metric, than the UK. But this weird "the NHS is the envy of the world" bullshit prevents it being reformed, and as someone with significant health problems that the NHS has failed to fix that's something that affects me personally.

Rather than insisting your country, or your ancestry, is the best or being "proud" of it, do something to make it better. Be a part of positive change, and be proud of that instead.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

Nationalism is dumb. It's the belief that your country is great just because you were born in it.

I'm from the UK, but I have no sense of patriotism or pride towards it. I'm not proud to be British because Britain fucking sucks. It's incompetently governed, too expensive to live in and full of absolute cunts. Those things could change, then the UK would be a better place to live. If that happened I'd be happier about the place where I live, but I don't feel any obligation to be "proud" of it.

In fact being "proud" of the country of your birth (or your ethnic ancestry for that matter) is a really fucking weird idea. "Pride" is something you would normally reserve for something you personally achieved, or at least had some part in. I'm not "proud" of being British, and I wouldn't even if the UK was the best place on Earth, because I can't claim credit for that. Any more than I should feel "ashamed" for the various awful things the British Empire did. I wasn't responsible for anything "Britain" or the "Anglo Saxons" did because I had no hand in any of it. I just popped into existence on this patch of Earth one day. I'm certainly interested in the history of my country and my people, those people and what they did created the place I live in and its place in the world. But there's no moral connection there, I cannot take credit for their achievements or blame for their mistakes.

Remember, if you think you can take credit for the achievements of your country or your "race", that means you are personally responsible for their mistakes too. Funny how "patriots" are suddenly "it's nothing to do with me, it was all in the past" when slavery reparations are mentioned. Thus are the dangers of identity politics.

The fact I was born here was a statistical accident. I think I may be in a minority by not feeling any attachment to my home country (if I could speak the language better I'd move to Germany, which had always struck me as being very much like Britain culturally but with less misery), but I could never understand it on any rational level. It's also a barrier to progress. Places like Portugal, Singapore and Australia have much better health systems, by any metric, than the UK. But this weird "the NHS is the envy of the world" bullshit prevents it being reformed, and as someone with significant health problems that the NHS has failed to fix that's something that affects me personally.

Rather than insisting your country, or your ancestry, is the best or being "proud" of it, do something to make it better. Be a part of positive change, and be proud of that instead.

The only reason you hate nationalism to this extent is because you were born in the UK; It is funny that what you seem to think as a rebellion against the UK mainstream opinion is actually exactly what your modern governments want you to think.

 

[Fek]

Nationalism is a healthy thing for any nation when it promotes pride in the dignity of the nation-state's internal morale, but it turns ugly when you assume your nation is any better than any other..

But mine is better than any other..

..because of said feelings.

..oh, okay. Well, confusing objectivity with sentiment is a recipe for disaster, so I'll give you that one.

..USA! USA! USA! USA!

Nationalism is dumb. It's the belief that your country is great just because you were born in it.

Well, if you define it that way then it certainly is quite dumb, yes. Moving forward, let it be known I'm using my own take on nationalism unless dictated otherwise.

I'm from the UK, but I have no sense of patriotism or pride towards it.

I'm sorry to hear that. Have you considered being more actively involved in making it a place you can be proud of?

I'm not proud to be British because Britain fucking sucks. It's incompetently governed, too expensive to live in and full of absolute cunts. Those things could change, then the UK would be a better place to live. If that happened I'd be happier about the place where I live, but I don't feel any obligation to be "proud" of it.

I see that you have not, in fact, considered being more actively involved in making it better..or at bare minimum, lifted a finger to try. Bitching into the aether is easy but it really won't fix anything.

You sound young, as this sort of paradoxical thinking tends to be corrected as you get older and realize how naive it is.

In fact being "proud" of the country of your birth (or your ethnic ancestry for that matter) is a really fucking weird idea.

Do you really think so? Humans don't really live too terribly long, even in modern times. You don't think there's anything to be said for acknowledging the efforts of your ancestors and coming to terms with the fact that it takes many generations NOT fucking everything up to really get much done? Do you think those older or long dead Brits worked as hard as they did to get your society to where it is today just so you could sit around (kicking and screaming and whining) about how things are just the worst?

Again, this strikes me as incredibly naive and even borderline infantile. I really think you should consider the whole picture.

"Pride" is something you would normally reserve for something you personally achieved, or at least had some part in.

The trend continues. Again, try being part of your goddamn country. Don't automatically assume that someone displaying patriotism doesn't have any reason to feel that way. When you're personally invested into things, you tend to start caring about them more.

Do you own a business? (no)
Do you have a family? Any kids? (no)
Have any friends in the armed forces?
What about any shiny toys you're terribly fond of that are a product of your country?

Yeah that last one is reaching, but you'd have to have some pretty impressive circumstances to not have any reason at all to be invested in your country's past, present, and future.

I'm not "proud" of being British, and I wouldn't even if the UK was the best place on Earth, because I can't claim credit for that. Any more than I should feel "ashamed" for the various awful things the British Empire did. I wasn't responsible for anything "Britain" or the "Anglo Saxons" did because I had no hand in any of it. I just popped into existence on this patch of Earth one day.

<record skips>..This message is repeati- <record skips> ..This message is repeati-

I got the point the first two times. I'd imagine most others did as well.

I'm certainly interested in the history of my country and my people, those people and what they did created the place I live in and its place in the world. But there's no moral connection there, I cannot take credit for their achievements or blame for their mistakes.

Do you think there would be any history of your country and your people if the ones who came before you acted like you are right now? I'm trying really hard to not just bitchslap you for being an arrogant child in a manner very much "for your own good," but this is getting difficult.

Remember, if you think you can take credit for the achievements of your country

Apples.

or your "race",

Oranges. Ignoring oranges for the sake of staying on topic.

that means you are personally responsible for their mistakes too.

I don't think taking pride in one's country, unless you're fucked in the head, means you're taking past accomplishments as though you had a personal hand in them. Likewise for past atrocities/mistakes. You should learn from both just like anything else in life. Repeat or further build on the good, learn how to avoid repeating the bad.

Funny how "patriots" are suddenly "it's nothing to do with me, it was all in the past" when slavery reparations are mentioned.

You should always own the good with the bad, but you should also understand what you're talking about. Reparations are another (very stupid) topic entirely.

Thus are the dangers of identity politics.

I don't even know where you're going with that one. If you mean to say that being dishonest and shying away from an uncomfortable topic is stupid, then yes - it's stupid.

The fact I was born here was a statistical accident. I think I may be in a minority by not feeling any attachment to my home country (if I could speak the language better I'd move to Germany, which had always struck me as being very much like Britain culturally but with less misery), but I could never understand it on any rational level.

Oi..you fancy yourself a nihilist, mate? I ask because this strikes me more and more as being the case.

It's also a barrier to progress. Places like Portugal, Singapore and Australia have much better health systems, by any metric, than the UK. But this weird "the NHS is the envy of the world" bullshit prevents it being reformed,

I thought this was off topic until:

and as someone with significant health problems that the NHS has failed to fix

Okay, so you've got a chip on your shoulder. Motherfucker, you're not thinking it through. PMing you for this one cause this shit's too powerlevely for conversation.

Rather than insisting your country, or your ancestry, is the best or being "proud" of it, do something to make it better. Be a part of positive change, and be proud of that instead.

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU SAY THIS ALL THE WAY AT THE END AND YET PROCEED TO NOT GET IT AT ALL FOR THE LENGTH OF A SHORT STORY?

I take it back, you do need a bitchslap and I mean that with all the sincerity of someone trying to help your naive ass. Sweet tap-dancing Christ on a pogo stick.

 

[Spunt]

Holy shit dude, you are incredibly stupid.

You have no idea what I may or may not have done to make my country a better place to live. I'm not going to talk about it here. Suffice to say you are full of shit and are making a vast number of assumptions about me, all of which are wrong.

The word you are looking for is "grateful". I am grateful and appreciative for what my ancestors did to make my life tolerable, and I work to make life better for my descendents. But I am not proud of what they did because that is idiotic. Nationalism as the extension of your ego to the achievements of others.

I don't "own" the "good and the bad". I don't, and can't, "own" anything. I have to play the ball as it lies. People made good decisions and bad decisions in the past that result in the situation we all find ourselves in now. Getting smug about the good is just as stupid as getting mad about the bad. What you do is study it, understand it, and learn from it, rather than derive your sense of identity from it which will tie you up in all kinds of knots. Both Nationalists and SJWs want people to be morally connected to the actions of other people in the past because of the colour of their skin or the flag that flew over the town hall. Whether you want to take credit, or want people to take the blame, both are unreasonable for the same reason. Morally, it's your actions that matter.

You seem to have got it into your head that it's impossible to care about the quality of life in the country that you live in and for those you care about without feeling tribalistic towards the vague notion of a "nation". Those are completely separate things - they may have got muddled up in your head, hence your muddled post, but your inability to grasp those concepts is not my problem.

 

[RG 448]

why our ultra-nationalist newfags do it?

because they dont fuck lmao

 

[Fek]

Holy shit dude, you are incredibly stupid.

No.

You have no idea what I may or may not have done to make my country a better place to live. I'm not going to talk about it here. Suffice to say you are full of shit and are making a vast number of assumptions about me, all of which are wrong.

That's fine and well, but you're not convincing me with a reply like that.

The word you are looking for is "grateful".

Can you point to where you think I was previously looking for said word so I have any context? I mean if you want play the "low effort reply" game, I can oblige. I just don't find it terribly productive in this subforum.

I am grateful and appreciative for what my ancestors did to make my life tolerable, and I work to make life better for my descendents. But I am not proud of what they did because that is idiotic.

Acknowledging and possibly honoring their memory for what they did is not pride, I agree. You may notice that is the very first second (yeah, fuck me) time I've uttered any variant of the word "pride" in either reply. Might be a reason for that.

Nationalism as the extension of your ego to the achievements of others.

I think that somewhere along the way, you got the impression that I view nationalism like this. I do not, and would gladly clear that confusion if you took more than thirty seconds to reply so I knew where it lied.

Like I'm really trying here, but I'm not bothering beyond this if it's just gonna be pointless. Fuck me for trying, I suppose.

I don't "own" the "good and the bad". I don't, and can't, "own" anything.

Yeah I think this is a colloquial thing you don't have over there. Let's just call it "Acknowledgements of all things that have led to you being who/where you are in life with responsibility taken where necessary." It's not perfect but it'll do.

I have to play the ball as it lies.

Yeah, that's the same shit put differently. If you're playing the ball at all, you know where it (and by proxy - you) stand even if you weren't the one that proverbially put the ball there in the first place.

I use em too, but really - fuck metaphors.

People made good decisions and bad decisions in the past that result in the situation we all find ourselves in now.

For finding me so daft, you sure are agreeing with me a lot.

Getting smug about the good is just as stupid as getting mad about the bad. What you do is study it, understand it, and learn from it, rather than derive your sense of identity from it which will tie you up in all kinds of knots.

Still in agreement. No one thing should create your identity. I'm not sure if I somehow implied that (I don't see it in review), but if you got that impression from me that's just not the case.

Both Nationalists and SJWs want people to be morally connected to the actions of other people in the past because of the colour of their skin or the flag that flew over the town hall. Whether you want to take credit, or want people to take the blame, both are unreasonable for the same reason. Morally, it's your actions that matter.

Again with this race shit. You seem to be conflating things that don't belong together. Or maybe you take it that way because you're a Brit, I dunno. As an American, it'd be awfully fucking stupid of me to use race as a yardstick for nationalism (someone earlier in the thread distinguished the difference and I'd urge you to go read it if it helps).

You don't praise/blame someone on a personal level for the boons/atrocities committed by someone else. You do have to deal with the fallout of said boon/atrocity (whether you like it or not) if that person shares culture with you. You're connected to Theresa May just as much as I am to the goddamn Clintons, for example. Everyone has skin in the game (yes, still fuck metaphors) even if you want to sit there and pretend you don't or...futiley wish you didn't. You can denounce this or that, but it's still your mess to deal with (in no matter how small a way) even if you're not personally responsible.

You seem to have got it into your head that it's impossible to care about the quality of life in the country that you live in and for those you care about without feeling tribalistic towards the vague notion of a "nation". Those are completely separate things - they may have got muddled up in your head, hence your muddled post, but your inability to grasp those concepts is not my problem.

I think you're hung up on "in a perfect world" vs reality, frankly. I'd love it if everyone had a great quality of life in the country I live in (most do). I'm also not someone irrationally attached to Uncle Sam's cock, if that needs to be said.

And you want to have the capacity to care about those around you without feeling tribalism towards a nation? Okay, well..where do you draw that line? Further, is where you draw the line better than where I or some other jackass who puts value in their nation would choose to? On what grounds would you argue such?

Hopefully you realize that you wouldn't have that (or any other) luxury without the nation you're living in allowing for it. Nations do matter, whether you want to pretend to find nationalism silly or not. Do you suppose you'd have the same situation if you were in fucking Ghanda or Chad? Do you think your line would change much? I'd wager it'd change heavily, and I couldn't help but notice you left anywhere that'd be terribly inconvenient to live out of your examples on where to go for better healthcare. Wonder why..

Quality of life in the country that you live in is a direct result of the fact you have a country in the first place. Do you think everywhere would just be wonderful across the globe if not for those damn pesky well-to-do nations ruining it for everyone? That final quoted bit just strikes me as rather odd. Again, it's not a perfect world.

I do agree that we're missing each other somewhere here, but I just wasn't given enough to work with in your reply to figure out where it is with certainty. I think it might have its roots in how we view nationalism.