>Nationalism—that névrose nationale from which Europe is suffering acutely; that eternal subdivision of Europe into petty states with politics on a municipal scale: they have robbed Europe itself of its significance, of its reason—and have led it into a cul de sac. Is there anyone except me who knows the way out of this cul de sac? An aspiration which would be great enough to bind the people of Europe once more together?
Brexiters on suicide watch.
>Unironically takes Frederich, I swear I didnt plagiarize Stirner,Nietzsche seriously.
>Implying that division into smaller countries,was what prevented Europe from ending like China
Kek.
Federalism nigger.
Occidental humanism, aka the fantasy of the liberals and libertarians is nothing but the attempt to make HEDONISM the most moral and the most legal
Why would you substitute a superior system that made tiny Europe the center of the world,with a pointless federation,which will just raise taxes depending on German interests,as it has been shown with the trade negotiations with Japan?
t.Burke
>Defending EU in any way
Enjoy terms you don't agree to faggot.
>Why would you substitute a superior system that made tiny Europe the center of the world
Empires made Europe the center of the world: Greek, Rome, Iberia, France, Britain. Every time Europe excessively decentralized it ended in irrelevance (Middle Ages) or disastrous wars (17th century, WW1).
Centralized leadership+subsidiary is literally the essence of Europe.
Capitalism was developed in the United provinces and the Italian city states,for example. And the countries that you mention had COMPETITION between each other. A federation would have very little of it
Serious question, why would anyone risk their life for something as vague as a nation? Is it a natural human behavior, a sense of responsibility, or mere indoctrination?
Pic related.
>excessively decentralised
>WW1
>supporting EU
Literally why?
Pure ideology.
>lmao stop complaining about us taking away your language, culture and us forcing your kids to die in our wars. nationalism is so dumb just submit to our imperialistic ambitions and die for us already
Because it's your group, an extension of the family/tribe
Why risk your life for your family? I mean, you could just live for yourself, nothing wrong with that. But some people don't want to do that.
>But some people don't want to do that.
they are not able to. plebs cannot be something else than plebs
>>The word "Europe" ought to be struck out of history. There is historically no "European" type, and it is sheer delusion to speak of the Hellenes as "European Antiquity"(were Homer and Heraclitus and Pythagoras, then, Asiatics?) and to enlarge upon their "mission" as such. These phrases express no realities but merely a sketchy interpretation of the map. It is thanks to this word "Europe" alone, and the complex of ideas resulting from it, that our historical consciousness has come to link Russia with the West in an utterly baseless unity — a mere abstraction derived from the reading of books — that has led to immense real consequences. In the shape of Peter the Great, this word has falsified the historical tendencies of a primitive human mass for two centuries, whereas the Russian instinct has very truly and fundamentally divided "Europe" from "Mother Russia" with the hostility that we can see embodied in Tolstoi, Aksakov or Dostoyevski. "East" and "West" are notions that contain real history, whereas "Europe" is an empty sound.
ideology tricks you into protecting the interests of other people, telling you that you're actually going to protect your own.
>EU
>bind the people of europe
It's forcing all of europe to go full germany, and you never want to go full germany
Pan-European Nationalism will be the future
I like the part where he speaks about how you shouldn't love your neighbor (literally), but those are live furthest from you.
In some ways it predicts internet culture.
Some people would die to preserve their culture,language and identity. I dont find it as vague as dying for things like democracy or liberty,as it affects them on a bigger scale than the ones stated above
...
>wanting to be subject to the whims of foreign bureaucrats just because of muh european unity
>brexit
This is the humanities board, not the contemporary politics board.
Because maybe, just maybe, people believe in something bigger than themselves
It depends on who the replacement is
If China attacked the US you bet I'd help out
...
>wanting to be subject to the whims of local bureaucrats just because of muh national unity
>implying they're not just projecting their own grandeur unto bigger institutions and ideals
People are fairly shit.
I dont need relevance if I can have a comfy ministate with a nuke to keep the dogs at bay.
I wouldnt mind if europe would end up as a collection of xenophobic swiss's and Liechtenstein's.
Federations are ok if ecobomic only, the EU is much more then that sadly.
The fact that your hypothetical country would have nuclear arsenal with capacity to potentially use it in itself implies it has (or at least had until recently) non-trivial military and political might. There's a reason why all nuclear powers are/were empires or great powers (Israel notwithstanding).
If you feel like you owe your ingroup, your tribe and veeeeery extended family something in the end you will fight for its preservation.
If YOU dont, some else will and your identity even if you dont value it will be replaced and subjugated by the one of the people that fight for it in the end which may be alien and uncomfortable for you or your children.
the problem is that the EU ain't uniting all the different cultures or even creating a single European cultures, it seems to be trying to destroy all different European cultures and Europe along with it
But the larger they believe in is not logically or rationally constructed extension of yourself. Nations are and were created and defined arbitrarily, based on blurred lines of culture, language spheres, history and political borders.
Even fucking Pakistan has them.
Many small countries dont have them because either their tech level is too low to produce em themselves without spiraling into debt or the american/eastern powerbloc throws a hissyfit about it because it means that it wont be able to stick its dick into.the countries terretory or use means of destabilisation for fast and convenient regime changes.
Maybe holy roman empire like formations could preserve mini/ethnostates in the face of military threat?
Now that you mention it, one of the important Cold War essays was by the influential thinker James Burnham (I forgot the name of the work), where he says that the only conceivable way to contain nuclear threat is by the foundation of a truly global sovereign, a kind of world-leviathan, be it democratic or not.
ITT: autists rationalizing their lack of human relationships by claiming some enlightened individualism
All of your beliefs, feelings, and language were given to you by others. You are a complete amalgamation of the society around you. You are not an individual.
To do that would need wars quiet massive I presume which brings us back to the nuclear threat.
NATO tried, but it has well armed opposition as well.
During the cold war the worlds population wasnt that high and a relative stability was still prevalent in a way that most countries appeared more civilised to the western onlooker.
(You could drive with a bus from greece to indochina without getting murderaped in anatolia already.)
So I can understand why he even thought about such a project as a possibility in an optimistic way.
poor brits just want to leave the faggot eu leave them alone
>EU
>not a cold monster
>You are not an individual.
I am because I believe myself to be one.
If you respect and love your family, who was caring and who nourished you to have the individual strength you now have, then you'd be an impudent fool not to want to defend them to the point of risking your life. Besides, the strongest people are always the ones with strong family bonds, and big connected families.
no, you are because someone else told you to believe yourself to be one
This kept bugging me so I made a crap model trying to explain it. Turns out that self interest (mainly how good is your life, how much education you have and being married with kids) might explain why people are would be willing to fight, but not why they wouldn't.
whoops
How in hell can you quantify such a thing.
With surveys. Check the world values survey of you're interested.
The rise of the US and the nadir of Germany/Europe proved him right on everything.
Although the weird thing is he expected Russia to be the Dionysian force that the US became. Probably because it was most remote from the revolution. Hegel know the US was about to become dominant, but his vision of it was the naive Kantian kind of shit the EU prides itself on.
I don't really see how you can extrapolate from verbal responses to something like willingness to die for your country. The only way to prove it is to actually deliver, and since the world isn't in perpetual war you can't have a large enough sample size.