Would you agree that a nation exists on the foundation of it's people?
>i.e Sweden for swedes, England for england etc etc
If so, would you agree then that most western european countries have in fact failed it's people and let outside interests take over a major part, if not all of, politics, media and culture?
Other urls found in this thread:
splcenter.org
vv.varzil.de
twitter.com
>“Let’s not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”
splcenter.org
how was this achieved?
>Would you agree that a nation exists on the foundation of it's people?
It's based on blood, culture, language and land.
> would you agree then that most western european countries have in fact failed it's people and let outside interests take over a major part, if not all of, politics, media and culture?
Here I assume people = those who historically/originally belong to the nation, ie the blood, culture and language part.
Yes, but failing was inevitable because the nation is not real, abstract, and too binary for a post world war 2 world.
It's not even failing when it's inevitable imho.
WWII
Has it become binary because of democracy and the illusion of choice? Wouldn't then a rightful king be able to restore balance to a nation and it's people?
>It's not even failing when it's inevitable imho.
care to expand?
>Has it become binary because of democracy and the illusion of choice?
I think it's too binary because, due to the idea of a united nation, it creates an us (let's say French) vs them (English) mentality that is absolutely false. For example now we are being told that England voted for Brexit, but looking at the map you clearly see at least 2 different zones, London and the rest.
When you compress everything into "England", it's a lot easier to hate everyone from that arbitrary piece of land, after all they are all the same. At the same time, it also fuels paranoia and distrust of people who are part of your country but are not like you, because the nation is supposed to be one and homogeneous.
>care to expand?
I simply think it's not failing when there wasn't another possible outcome.
>a nation exists on the foundation of it's people?
Sounds fascist as fuck to be frank my kin, economy and Hebrews not sovereignty and people.
Nations are spooks family
Then how would someone go about uniting a people, if not by nation or king?
>I simply think it's not failing when there wasn't another possible outcome
if it's bound to fail, then what system would you propose to upheave this current decline?
>Would you agree that a nation exists on the foundation of it's people?
I don't really know what this means?
>i.e Sweden for swedes, England for england etc etc
This seems tautological, I think? Are you talking about a racial thing? What makes someone English?
>spooks
specifically granfalloons
>I don't really know what this means?
Say we have the waiki people somewhere in the pacific and they grow from a small tribe to a decently sized population on which they then found a Waiki nation.
>This seems tautological, I think?
You think, how?
>Are you talking about a racial thing?
Not really but I can see how someone would think so.
>What makes someone English?
A common culture,language social norms etc, I'd presume.
source on that quote in the picture?
>Say we have the waiki people somewhere in the pacific and they grow from a small tribe to a decently sized population on which they then found a Waiki nation.
Ok. Then what?
>You think, how?
In that "Sweden is for Swedes" by definition?
>>What makes someone English?
>A common culture,language social norms etc, I'd presume.
But all those things change over time and place and can be learned or forgotten.
I guess my question is what are you really asking, no bullshit?
...
The flaw in your theory is that all human populations can claim earlier lineage to another population, and another state. America, for instance. America for Americans, or America for Britons? For WASPS? Germanics and Swedes? Italians and Irish? Which is it?
It's actually, America for the Americans, Britons, WASPs, Germanics, Swedes, Italians, the Irish, and so on and so on.
>Ok. Then what?
Nothing, the waiki people founded the waiki nation, same as the swedes created Sweden, chinese created china and so on.
>In that "Sweden is for Swedes" by definition?
Isn't it? If a country is created by it's people isn't it then for it's people?
>But all those things change over time and place and can be learned or forgotten.
Sure it can and that's why A LOT of nations have split up and ceased to exist.
>I guess my question is what are you really asking, no bullshit?
not really asking anything, I'm just looking to discuss about this subject in general since i lack the opportunity to talk about it elsewhere.
It's not really a theory but yes, humans can and still are doing just that.
Don't know about that though as the "melting pot" idea was made big during modern times by Israel Zangwill. Although the original colonies were indeed made up of different nationalities.
>Isn't it? If a country is created by it's people isn't it then for it's people?
I don't know since this is all vague as fuck. What does created by it's people mean? (i.e., what would it mean for that not to be case?) What makes it "for it's people?"
Maybe this will help. What do you make of this:
>Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
The opening to the Gettysburg Address. Is Abraham Lincoln contradicting you or not?
What chapter/page?
>What does created by it's people mean? (i.e., what would it mean for that not to be case?)
A group of persons, of the same common tounge and culture come together and form a government of a nation. All democratic nations state that it exists for it's people, right?
For it to not be the case I'd like to give you examples of some of the modern day nations of africa, which have been drawn up and created by outsiders. This has sparked genocides, civil wars and more conflicts.
>The opening to the Gettysburg Address. Is Abraham Lincoln contradicting you or not?
Not really, no.
>Not really, no.
No? But his "nation" is "brought forth," not like your Waiki people. And it is dedicated to a philosophy, not some special club. Doesn't sound at all like what you're talking about.
Posting a picture of a book you claim a quote is from doesn't help
It was brought forth by people with the same ideals and ideas, which is a common ground neglecting past national identities. It's not the same no, but a nation none the less.
>It was brought forth by people with the same ideals and ideas, which is a common ground neglecting past national identities.
Ok, so how is that different than western european countries reinventing themselves with similar ideals?
Here's a PDF of the original in German, you won't find the quote since it's /pol/ bullshit, there's not even a single mention of Jews.
The answer is history.
The native american history was erased during colonization.
What I don't get is why some people have the "right" to attack other cultures directly, while others have no "right" to defend their own.
I'm talking about the morality judgements made by the left and the right.
>Would you agree that a nation exists
no
>A common culture,language social norms etc, I'd presume.
So the kids of a black man who moves to England are 100% English if they accept the culture?
If they integrate fully? Yeah.
also, this.
Other user. Would you say a Polish or Italian man isnt?
but then comes the question of the black person being comfortable in a majority white nation. most people who are a minority in a state tend to not feel beloning to the nation where they live and hold little to no respect for it.
A nation for its nationals is a circular concept.
Now, if instead of "nation", you mean "state", well, this is an extremely retarded concept, and a real mental plague in human civilization.
Nation is a mere sociological and identitary fiction.
State is an institution whose basic purpose is the common defense of the lives and property of individuals who contribute to its maintenance and continuity.
There is - NO - inherent association between state and nation.
This is an idea that was consolidated in the twentieth century.
An extremely stupid idea. It ruined civilizations from centuries of existence, plucked million from their homes, and that was the great banner of progressive left. It went wrong, of course, with a bloody legacy. Now, a new stupid doctrine, multiculturalism (i.e .: Integration forced by institutional means), has gained strength, and will fail.
>quote /pol/ posts all the time to prove there is a giant conspiaricy
>it's nothing
I got to be sure, what arguments does the /pol/acks use against this quote being false?
The mass immigration started decines after the wars end, no?
What form of state is best suited for a homogenous society?
Then they should fuck right off tbqh
Ancient Egypt was a pretty successful multiethnic society
How about the minorities indigenous to the area within the state?
Many we are 1 nation under 1 state tend to have minorities in them that are marginalized.
Because of tyranical god-kings, also not an answer to the question.
No real answer to that.
Either breakaway to form an independent state or assimilate. Was a big issue in poland when they gained former german land in 1945. The germans either fled, were killed or assimilated.
Why not?
>Either breakaway to form an independent state or assimilate.
Yeah they will actively prevent that shit since they are losing land idiot not to mention they may not even receive any fucking support at all from outside nations (look at Catalonia, Somaliland). For assimilation that really doesn't work in a lot of cases and it often backfires plenty of times.
And isn't this exactly why genocides happen then?
America was founded by all different kinds of Europeans, Africans and Natives, followed by Latinos, Asians, Arabs and any other accepted immigration influx. How do you explain that?
genocide is just another game, afterall
>Would you agree that a nation exists
do you read before you post?
instead of mocking the ignorant, educate and elevate them to your level.
BRITAIN FOR THE CELTICS
ROMANS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Then how would someone go about uniting a people, if not by nation or king?
By culture. It would mean the elimination of the concept of blood in a nation and the replacement of the nation with something else and smaller, something that can be better defined culturally homogeneous (even if, obviously, it'll never be 100% the same).
> then what system would you propose to upheave this current decline?
I don't think there is a decline.
> Would you agree that a nation exists on the foundation of it's people?
What came first: Sweden or Swedes?
nations are founded by a group of people who find themselves in agreement with each other over sets of values, cultures, borders, or what have you. so long as those basic values that people consider swedish, german, american, or whatever else that group might call themselves are not infringed upon by immigrants, i don't see how your proposition is violated. this is why people in north america do not mind when people from europe immigrate in, because they share sets of basic values. people are not so strictly nationalist like /pol/acks might wish they were. they only care about a certain set of values being fulfilled.
now when you have a group of people who don't share those basic values immigrating in, yeah it can be a problem. but to answer this part:
>would you agree then that most western european countries have in fact failed it's people and let outside interests take over a major part, if not all of, politics, media and culture?
i would say the answer is no assuming that the people from outside the country still share those basic values that the country was founded on. it is not so bad if americans or canadians or germans have a role in british politics so long as they're affected by it and share that basic set of values.
Praktischer Idealismus, page 22/23
Chapter 4. INZUCHT - KREUZUNG
>The answer is history.
>The native american history was erased during colonization.
I don't see how this is an answer to the question. How are Native Americans related at all?
Why did you even post that if you didn't read it.
It's the other way around.
The most important feature of a people is a common language, something only a school system who can teach everyone the "correct" language.
Countries like Germany and Sweden might as well have been replaced with several countries and peoples if history took another turn.
Isn't tjat a diffetent book than Or?