Nationalism is how the globe-trotting capitalist class cages and segregates labor. Divide and conquer.

You've almost got it. You left out the part where open borders are used to drive the working class towards subsistence, to keep the workers too poor to work together.

You are more wise than your mother.

yeah... I hate the blame game, but the older generations' fear/greed/herd complex have enabled the current eternal warmaking state and wealth gap that sustains it.

They are to blame for oh so much more.

They are to blame for oh so much more.

I'm disappointed that the Greatest Generation gave birth to the worst generation.

Did you also get a hate filled IM from some cowardly asshole? Guess I struck a nerve. HAHA!

not yet... I have gotten some weird ones over the past 2 weeks, though.

Me too. The truth has a tendency to piss people off. Especially if its the truth about Israel.

OY VEY

I agree with you.

Do you have a favorite team?

A favorite school?

A favorite club?

Birds of a feather flock together. There is no way to legislate that out of any species. It is natural in all animals to gather together with others that have common traits and interests. Your place of birth is just one way humans identify themselves. The ruling elite want to eliminate borders and nations so they can have a one world government.

This post will self destruct in 10 down vote.

Why does a 1 world government have to be a bad thing?

because its consolidates power in the hands of a few over different groups that dont have similar agendas. What is good for one group may not be another.

The farther you are away from the controllers the less influence you have. Small town, everyone knows everyone. You participate in the governing of the small town. You know the sheriff, the judge, the mayor, and you are a part of that small group. You are known to them and they are known to you. The bigger the group the less you matter. In the US you are one of three hundred million. In the world you are one of 6.8 billion. Smaller is better for the individual.

I'm guessing you have never lived in a small town. The scenario in your comment is neat to imagine but not reflective of how things actually happen. Knowing people in a community doesn't mean they will like you, respect your rights or even treat you nicely. Nor does it mean you will have any influence political or otherwise. The idea that governments get better the smaller they are is completely false. Small and big government are equally susceptible to corruption and being oppressive. While you might only be one person out of three hundred million in the US in a small town you can easily become known as "That crazy person my cousin told me killed someone 10 years ago!" or some other damaging stigmatization which can make life difficult.

Even if you were right about them being equally susceptible, it bears noting that it's easier to move to a different small town than a different country.

The levels are infinite. Hair, eyes, size, occupation, school, level of education, gang, hobby, race, ethnicity, religion (including atheism), sect, denomination, family, etc, etc. control of the population by a very small group is dangerous.

People use globalism and communism to commit far more crimes than Nationalists. Muslims are the number one terrorists on Earth right now, followed by Commies, but you're worried about one of the least offending groups? Why?

http://markhumphrys.com/left.right.violence.html

You're either ignorant, or blatantly lying. Either way, if you believe that the media or authorities are conspiring to brand muslims as terrorists, you have to provide evidence for that claim.

If a people don't care about preserving themselves, won't they die? Are you saying self-preservation is evil? The hell is wrong with you? If this is the case, then give me your money and wife.

Pride in government or people: if they're doing good, shouldn't we be proud of them? This is like saying "being proud of your family is bad" you're a fool.

Moral high ground. Yeah, that's rich. Leftists are the ones saying they have the moral high ground today, and they certainly aren't Nationalists. You haven't a clue what you're talking about here.

You aren't allowed to speak anymore until you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, apply his theories to ideas and politics, then come back outside and start talking.

So, your evidence to the conspiracy of the media branding muslims as terrorists is to divert attention towards Wahabism and Israel? What are you even talking about?

So The House of Saud made the Wahabi sect to force Islam around the world and this means that Muslims ARE NOT terrorists?

What the fuck are you talking about?

"Not people as in citizens preserving themselves but the ones ahead of the government. They preserve themselves at the expense of others."

This is...I don't even understand. The GOV protects its PEOPLE, so a society's GOV practicing self-preservation IS the people practicing self-preservation (barring a schism between gov and populace, which is remedied with time, historically)

Extreme nationalism is used to get people to support an oppressive regime. Anti-nationalism is used to get people to accept a coup.

There is nothing wrong with loving and wanting good things from your birth country.

There is nothing wrong with loving and wanting good things from your birth country planet.

"Imagine there's no countries"

Globalist, communist, deracinated rhetoric.

I came here to write this, you said it well.

Commies should get helicopter rides.

We are all humans.

False. There are five species which are commonly called ‘human’.

We all bleed. Just different in color.

Completely fucking false.

http://pastebin.com/Fz5LCmfh http://imgur.com/a/YO289 https://pastebin.com/zezXUrNg

I truly believe that nationalism is pure evil without it imagine the world.

A bunch of cannibalistic communist tribes of mentally retarded, mulatto sex slaves, ruled over by the jews in jerusalem. Yeah, just fucking imagine how much better that would be.

Your guys’ thoughts on nationalism?

Before we broach this subject, we must define a few things. Namely, what a nation is, what laws are, and what a government is. Or, rather, what they should be ideally. One thing you should know is that in reality, many “nations,” “laws,” and “governments” do not fit these definitions. That should not be a reason to dismiss these definitions as wrong, but rather a reason to question the legitimacy of said nations, laws and governments.

• A nation is a society with a common set of laws enforced by a common government occupying a more or less well-defined territory. • A law is a social rule agreed upon by the greater majority of the people of the nation. Laws are different from social etiquette in that it is considered acceptable to enforce them through violence. • A government is the entity within the nation which creates and enforces laws. Because of this role, it represents the nation and thus also takes the role of managing international relationships.

These are the barebones definitions. As said, many do not fit these definitions, calling into question their legitimacy. With these established, we can begin asking interesting questions. For example, “Should the government take on a greater role?” We often assume that the government should be “as small as possible,” but why is that? My aim with this post will be to quickly go over the aim of a “welfare state,” why it fails, why a “smaller government” is better, and why it is yet still sometimes acceptable for governments to engage in projects beyond the barest management.

The fundamental power of the government should be the creation and enforcement of laws. Because of this, a government also manages international relations. They therefore also have some power over the military. To examine a “welfare state”–a nation whose government provides many services to its citizens–we’ll add powers and responsibilities to the government. In a democratic society, the government is considered to be controlled by the people. Thus, anything controlled by the government is supposedly controlled by the people. We know that isn’t true, but bear with me. We’re examining why it isn’t true, so we must first act as if it is to reach a logical conclusion.

Let’s say we task the government with managing cars. The government will provide cars and fuel to the people. But to do this, the government would need money–either to buy the cars and fuel or to produce them. To get that money, the government needs to tax the people. Furthermore, in order to know who needs a car and fuel and who doesn’t, they must be able to keep records of the people. They must know who has a car, where they live, how much fuel they use, for what the car is used, etc.

That’s not all! Now that everyone is pitching in through taxes, people want those cars and that fuel to go to good use. So the government starts regulating what kind of car you can have, what kind of fuel you use, how much fuel you can use, for what you can use the car, where you can go with that car, how much you can use the car, etc. Never mind that simply by providing the car and fuel, they decide what kind of car and what kind of fuel you get. Here we can see how allowing the government to manage more than mere laws and international regulations greatly increases its power. The more the government is allowed to manage things in the nation, necessarily the more power it gets. The more power it gets, the harder it is to fight even a single point of corruption therein, and so the more corrupt it gets. A powerful, corrupt government is tyranny–no more, no less. It does not matter whether the facade of democracy–or even republicanism–remains; it is a logical conclusion.

The more powerful a government, the harder it is to take action against it. The harder it is to take action against it, the easier it is for corrupt government officials to get away with corruption. And since giving greater management responsibilities proportionally increases the government’s powers, we can therefore conclude that giving greater management responsibilities to the government corrupts it. Yet, are there things a government can do which would not increase its power? Or can we prevent corruption in any way? First, let’s examine what additional tasks a government could accomplish which would not threaten to give it undue powers. Let us call those additional tasks “social projects.” Quite honestly, it is exactly what they are–projects which societies want to achieve for the good of its members. However, as we’ve seen, a large scale social project which requires constant management is a bad thing. However, we can separate social projects into two categories: perpetual and finite.

Perpetual projects are those like the one I used as an example: we want to provide goods and services to the population, yet they require constant upkeep, therefore require records, regulations, and so on. Finite projects are different. They’re usually about infrastructure (though not always) and are meant to either provide something essential to the functioning of society or to advance our knowledge. Good examples are roads, aqueducts, the space program, etc. Though governments love to keep managing the things they build, nothing forces them to. As an example, once an aqueduct is built in a village which did not possess the money or knowledge to build one, its management could easily be relayed to the local authorities. These projects also somewhat increase the government’s powers since they require greater taxation and some management for their duration, yet the potential for abuse is much lower. Existent, yet much lower.

But what about corruption? What can we do about it? There is more than one way to do this, but not all are practical. Absurd levels of vigilance are one. People who chose to become public servants would have to be monitored essentially 24/7 to ensure that they couldn’t pull any tricks. These days it isn’t hard to monitor people like that, but it would be hard to find citizens willing to do so. If we kept the monitoring of public servants to a single agency and did not publicly release stuff about their private lives, it would be feasible that people would go into government, but the possibility remains that the monitors could be bribed.

Instead, we could simply increase their pay such that public servants would be willing to put up with being monitored. I’m not how much money we’d have to pay people to give up their privacy almost entirely, but it’s lower now than in the past. We could also enforce anti-corruption laws with execution–expanding the definition of treason, for instance–or just extremely harshly (multiple-year jail terms and a lifetime ban on further public service at any level) and reduce the amount of monitoring to more reasonable levels.

Naturally, my preference is simply to keep government smaller than deal with all of this. To fight corruption, one must understand its source: The will to power. The will to power is not a bad thing. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: The will to power is what drives us to elevate humanity. But an ill-advised will to power can be destructive. This is corruption.

Corruption happens when an individual with power uses it to the detriment of others for personal gain. This may seem natural; one naturally wishes for power unless taken in by slave morality. Looking at the greater picture, however, it becomes obvious that corruption is actually self-defeating: By acting to the detriment of your nation for personal gains, you are harming the nation of which you are a part. Therefore, you harm yourself. What you are doing is not increasing your own absolute power, but increasing your relative power. This is why the most corrupt governments in the world, though they possess unbelievable amounts of power over their citizens, are usually the weakest in the international power structure. The corrupt unwittingly work against themselves. How can we prevent this?

The answer is actually appears quite obvious once you know it: Nationalism. Nationalism is what teaches people the importance of the nation; it’s what teaches them how their own power depends on the power of the nation–how harming the nation harms them. Therefore, we can conclude that the more nationalist a nation, particularly a nation’s government, the less corrupt a nation will be. As the potential for corruption becomes smaller, the scope of social projects can increase.

In conclusion, this is why I denounced national multiculturalism in a previous essay. The more multicultural a nation, the less coherent the people. The less coherent the people, the harder it is to have nationalism. The harder it is to have nationalism, the less social projects you can engage. With this, we can conclude the following things:

1. A larger government will necessarily have a higher risk of tyranny.
2. Finite social projects should take precedent over perpetual.
3. Nationalism reduces corruption and therefore allows greater social projects.

These three principles are fairly safe bets when you want to achieve a functional nation. It is, of course, possible to argue about the extent to which each should be applied, but not their truth. And remember that they are not possible in a multicultural nation.

When I was younger I found this essay by Emma Goldman articulate clearly my thoughts on the issue. They mirror yours. Give it a read. Here is a famous snippet: mind you it is written in 1911!

Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/patriotism.html

it's great if no one gets hurt from it..

from history though extreme Nationalism always leads to some kind of suffering.

"it's great if no one gets hurt from it.. from history though [communism/religion/irreligion/multiculturalism/ethnic differences/anti-nationalism/socialism] always leads to some kind of suffering."

see what I did there? I also didn't make any actual point.

When i was younger i would agree with op. until i learned how superior my ppl is

Your guys' thoughts on nationalism?

Hitler's laughing from his grave. The EU is incapable of taking the next step towards unification, and will likely unravel before it ever does.

Why? Because of their approach to nationalism.

Hitler killed the EU before the EU was ever formed.