Rising Nationalism

Interestingly, a book I just finished talked about how government replaced God in some ways. I guess there's more trust in a national government.

>implying jews and poles didn't have it coming

>they think that it just comes down to racism.

The goal was never to legitimize anti-globalist reactionism. Do not think for a second that their handlers (multinational corporations and globalist policy makers) want a fair debate on the subject. Labeling nationalistic sentiment as racist and xenophobic is more effective than any other tactic.

Cracks me up that European socialists suddenly care about markets and economics when it's backing their cause.

Weimar republic

>Nationalistic
Nationalism is a mordern meme started by the French revolution

It isn't even such an effective tactic. According to sociology when you attack peoples ideas they grow stronger.

Just look at Donald Trump. The constant ridicule of the media has only made his support grow.

>It isn't even such an effective tactic.

maybe not in the short term, but when the globalists control the distribution of information and the history books, you can control a generation.

Forgive me if this is the wrong thread to do this in, but can someone explain what globalism is and its pros and cons?

I've seen it thrown about a lot recently.

Essentially, exploiting the most poverty tier nations on the planet, for resources and labor, in order to trade the goods, services, and resources they create for maximum profits in first world nations.

Why manufacture goods in the first world when you can pay a third world fool to do the same job for 1% of the cost? Why build a factory in the first world when you can build the same factory in the third world for less, and don't have to worry about pesky environmental and labor regulations? Why pay a first world citizen to do anything when you can get a third world fuck to do it for less, and don't have to provide them with any health insurance, safety equipment, vacation time, sick leave, or even training.

Yes.

This exact same thing happened in the 1980s and that's where the main nationalist parties of Britain, France, and possibly other European countries had their genesis. What we're experiencing is more akin to that than the fascist movements following WW1.

That sounds a bit improbable. I do think that the media has tendencies to be an echochamber, and that a cultural elite has the influence in what is dictated at school, but I do not see it happening that information and books will be fully controled.

When the people (justly) believe that their leaders have sold them down the river, they band together to stop it

WWI and WWII and the Cold War and most of the wars in the middle east since the fall of the USSR and Napoleon and The American revolution.

>Muslims fleeing from the land that was fucked up Europeans and the US.

Seems like Europe deserves it. It being, having their egos bruised. Which is all that is happening. Nothing more than a person getting mad seeing a brown guy. Which is what they deserve. They deserve to suffer in this way if they're nationalistic. It's actually harmless, and all in their heads, so it's funny to see it happen. It's like spraying a cat with water for shitting on the rug.

Maybe if white people weren't sucking Saudi dick for oil like hookers, Muslims wouldn't have to deal with a shit ton of proxy wars and control for oil on their land.

Does Europe not have police and courts? Because this is the only reason stuff like this could happen. Which would seem odd. How can Europe claim immigrants should follow the law if Europe doesn't have law?

Oh, you are just retarded. I see now.

Because they're not actually socialists, they're establishment left-liberals.

I don't think you understand exactly how the media works. First you look at your facebook trending section and read "Texas lawmakers making controversial changes to history textbooks." You click on the carefully curated link to get to the juicy bits. "Influence of Jefferson diminished," "importance of gun rights emphasized," "nationalistic Alamo sentiment increased," might be some of the bullet points summarized by the "journalist." You never actually read the changes for yourself, you just take his word for it because you are an average American.

You see, your view of high school curriculum was either a neutral or a fair one up until this point. It was the corrupt conservative lawmakers who brought this evil article to you via controversy and facebook "algorithms."

now meanwhile, you have east coast teachers unions who have been vying for a lauding chapter in every american history book in the country. no one says anything. no gotcha piece with damaging quotes is ever written. so you unknowingly accept this as the norm. "they never write about liberals so therefore liberals are the good guys!"

apply this to every issue ever and you get the state of West media. society can't simply deflect this level of brainwashing.

Globalization is the cause of the nationalist upsurge.

But nationalism is basically the same shit as racism. It's tribalism. it's all the same primal monkey part of our brains reaction out of fear. We evolved to fear and fight nearby packs who want our feeding grounds and women.

We don't live as packs, though. And globalization is inevitable. Cultures comes and go. They are born, they meld, and die. cultures are more human than objective lines in the sand. Europe has become very Americanized. America is very influenced by Natives and Africans, even though European influence is the most significant.

Rejecting globalism is accepting poverty. That's the cold hard fact. For example, Britain can not live forever on it's money left over from the colonial era. Their government probably won't follow through with leaving the EU, because it's a horrible long term choice to make, and has no benefit in the short or long term.

It's called "Human Rights", the civil religion of global liberalism. For every illegal we eventually deport, 100 more arrive

that doesn't matter.

They aren't hurting anyone. Humans beings are escaping a war over oil. have some fucking empathy.

if they break the law, like steal or vandalize, then they get caught and the law is put into place. if they can't be arrested, then your legal system has far bigger issues than some brown people that don't have the right paperwork.

Are your police underfunded? Incompetent? I didn't know Baltimore had an immigrant problem. *ba dum, tss*

Tell that to the Native American's

Anti-monarchic revolutions of the 19th century
Almost all countries had rebellions against the way the government did things and wanted the common people to take part in it. Rather than caring about their own kind against other nationalities, they cared about their own kind against the ruling class
And of course early 20th century where people started caring about their own ideologies against others'
I don't know what will we care about after these ones

In another way, it's just people finding out they're being suppressed and trying to force the pendulum back
With suppressed/free at the extremes we have
>> Constitutional Monarchy/Parliament
>Rule of the common man -Nationalist revolutions- (Power back to the common man?)

The Native Americans were being invaded.

With an actual army.

in an era were people with guns were racing to control as many people without guns as possible.

Where 9 out of 10 died of disease, which was a cause of happenstance. Europeans didn't make Native Americans not exposed to small pox for thousands of years.

It's a completely different scenario, and it's dishonest at best to make the comparison to refugees.

With this yes, I am implying that political correctness is a tool for the intellectuals to keep power.

It obliviously goes against the common man's interests: financial setback to give free shit to non-countrymen, having non-countrymen come in the country to receive money, jobs, housing (from the common man's pockets), invalidating the common man's arguments purely on the fact that they're based on place of origin (how the fuck would you avoid it, and WHY the fuck would you), having the common man accept demential sexual inclination on the retarded basis of having to be nice to everyone (aside from the common man himself, he can and should be penalized) etc.

Ok mate here's the thing: I am Dutch and I think the left-right dichotomy is wank. So I'll admit though that I'm more left leaning. Next thing: not on Facebook but am going to since it is expected these days (will probably shield myself of politics though).

That having said there's no doubt that there's a policy of liberalizing. The elite is liberal and they are the ones behind (these) policies. I have noticed how movies and such stuff are made more liberal.

I think communism is retarded, but Karl Marx was right about class warfare. I see an elite which is liberal and a working class who is mostly conservative and yea it is clashing.

So I agree with you mate that there's an agenda being pushed by a liberal elite. But I don't see a total control happening.

Hope I understood you correctly.

Oh please. They may not be hurting anyone now but they are hurting the future of their host country mainly due to their birthrate in comparison to the birthrate of most native european countries. In all honesty, I'd be a lot more willing to take them if they werent Muslim. I say this because I fully believe that Islam is nigh incompatible with Western liberal democracies, a way of life which is regarded as decadent and backwards in Islam.

When they outbreed Europeans and a demographic shift happens where there is a majority of Muslims in a western liberal democracy, you will see how they have the potential to harm.

North American natives weren't invaded with actual European armies until they proved to be a danger to their settlers. Obviously it's not the same thing for South American natives, though.

>The Native Americans were being invaded. With an actual army.

The Europeans that migrated there over hundreds of years did so overwhelmingly on the basis of attaining a better life. Indeed the Pilgrims were escaping persecution at home. Do not be fooled, manifest destiny was not the policy of Empire, but the individual migrants American Dream.

You can pick hair all you want in any analogy you don't like but the reality of humanity is we are species defined by conflict precisely because we live in contested space where resources are limited.

Not that I don't sympathise with the migrants escaping war to Europe. But that does not make them a force for good in our own society, they are humans just like us. The difference being I recognise their right to difference. I do not expect any other continent on the earth to accept masses of westerners who undermine their own cultures and societies when thier prejudices are entirely legitimate and historically material

The work of an intellectual is not to mould the political will of others; it is, through the analyses that he does in his own field, to re-examine evidence and assumptions, to shake up habitual ways of working and thinking, to dissipate conventional familiarities, to re-evaluate rules and institutions and to participate in the formation of a political will (where he has his role as citizen to play).

I've noticed when visiting a board of Dutch muslims that young muslims westernize quickly and in some extent are more liberal as I am.
The biggest problems seem to be Turkish nationalism, anti-semitism and crime amongst muslims in the Netherlands.

But what do I know, I am from the rural part of the country and highly educated: I do not come in contact with muslims often.

The strategic adversary is fascism... the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us.

>not to mould the political will of others
Sure, the point is INVALIDATING the political opinion of others. It ignores identities and starts from the supposition that everyone is equal, it ignores personal interests in exchange for moral highground which is used for validation of the self and invalidation of the opponents.
It's a circlejerk.

>Sure, the point is INVALIDATING the political opinion of others

Yes.

>elites start a war in the me
>has and always had shit support
>no common people wanted this war
>opec, israel, and suadi arabia insist on the war
>it turns to shit
>the rise of isis
>european countries flooding with third world muslims
>elites live in fancy gated communities
>its the common mans fault for being against it

By looking at who's the nicer guy.
A society based upon who's more welcoming to outside societies cannot survive.

The problem is they don't want to assimilate (and nor should they be coerced to), however at the same time they cannot accept the Nation-state model of Netherlands for the Dutch people. So they galvanise around their own ethnic nationalism and try to bring it into other nation-states.

You want to see what a "multicultural" Holland would be like? Lebanon, a society of self-segregation and a hodge podge of ethnic enclaves characterised by weak unstable government and the constant looming threat of violence

This.

I do not know enough about it to say whatever you are right.
But I can tell ya that Holland is not a friend of mine. It is a region not thought highly of in the region I am from.

The world has turned into one big Weimar Republic waiting for a savior to get it out of the mud.

>A society based upon who's more welcoming to outside societies cannot survive.

None of this is about that. It is about it to you, but other people are thinking of other significant issues, and simply put, people who do complain about immigration are none to point fingers at greater systemic problems arisen that allow such an influx of the poor and the unwanted in the first place. And my gut reaction is to point the finger at the one with clearer malice. The West.

The Native American's what?

The Native American's erasure of a once proud race on their own territory

Just listen to yourself. If you're not irrationally nice your argument is invalid. I can imagine what's the thing more important than ensuring a future for your kind. And you know why you don't like your kind compared to others. Because it gives your opinion special status.

>Just listen to yourself. If you're not irrationally nice your argument is invalid

Isn't what I said at all.

> I can imagine what's the thing more important than ensuring a future for your kind.

My kind?

>And you know why you don't like your kind compared to others. Because it gives your opinion special status.

This has nothing to do with what I said, at all. You're making assumptions of motive instead of grasping the meat of the matter.

>It's actually harmless, and all in their heads

t. mentally deranged cuckold

>They aren't hurting anyone

top kek, upvoted

Just because the liberal elite in the West is exploiting the rest of the world does not make any victim in principle virtious.

This is dehumanising an entire people by saying that they actually have no agency to do good or bad things themselves. While the West did have a part in manufactoruing ISIS, the ME has been going through sectarian strife for centuries long before western capitalists starting poking around

Kys.

>nor should they be coerced to

Yeah they should.

You want to live in the west, you live by its laws

Those are English imports straight out of Pakistan though. Not recent wave IIRC

You're correct, but I think he's showing what the descendants of the migrants will be doing

>Just because the liberal elite in the West is exploiting the rest of the world does not make any victim in principle virtious.

So are we to assume all are not? You pride yourselves on believing in the tenants of the west, individuality and so on so forth, yet when you become afraid and hysterical, you are just as easy to shed them for the convenience of those seen logical that are not.

>This is dehumanising an entire people by saying that they actually have no agency to do good or bad things themselves.

On the contrary, if dehumanization is your worry, why not expand your horizons?

>While the West did have a part in manufactoruing ISIS, the ME has been going through sectarian strife for centuries

It was secular at one point. We manufactured the demise of its secularism.

>long before western capitalists starting poking around

True it was violent once, then again so was Europe. At its secular, the west saw a way to destroy it. Blame the Cold War.

All of them?

Mainstream political discussion is based upon who has the most welcoming opinion, all you're saying is you disagree but won't clearly explain why.
I'm pretending you're from a western country, if you're not you aren't doing anything wrong other than taking advantage of the current western way of thinking.
It has everything to do with what you say, because it's what makes you say it and that is the true "meat of the matter"

Barbarism is in their culture

You didn't answer. Descendants of white people will also be raping children.

What was secular? Most of these migrants are goatherds and their like, they have always been the way they are.

And don't act like it was only the West that is to blame. The people willingly drank of the chalice they were provided, or else they would have overthrown the imposed rulers and returned to the old

>Mainstream political discussion is based upon who has the most welcoming opinion, all you're saying is you disagree but won't clearly explain why.

I'm saying that regardless of what you do wwith the immigrants, the systems in place to create more poor, more unwanted, more immigrants in the first place, are there.

As long as The United States is in a perpetual state of war due to demand of blood on the market, or, the defense industry to supply the one thing we fund the most, you will not see change.

You can throw away immigrants, but still more pop up. You can throw them out and yel at them for being uneducated while in a single breath not thinking of the greater scope of the problem.

>I'm pretending you're from a western country, if you're not you aren't doing anything wrong other than taking advantage of the current western way of thinking.

I am.

>It has everything to do with what you say, because it's what makes you say it and that is the true "meat of the matter"

The meat of the matter is the problem you seek are not immigrants but think tanks.

Yes, but most Europeans are secular, while the Muslim's paragon of virtue married a 9 year old girl.

But good job comparing apples and oranges

>while the Muslim's paragon of virtue married a 9 year old girl.
Royalty in the west was also keen on underage marriages. And some nice recent cases of pedophilia in church.

The point is, assuming muslims do have for example higher rape rate, what's the qualification for good and bad immigration? Let's say in UK you have many immigrants from other nations with better crime records than natives. Why aren't natives the evil ones there?

Bringing Pakistan when talking about mostly Syria centered refuges also isn't exactly nice.

Yes, key word here WAS. And everybody knows the priests are pedophilic, do you see anyone defending them?

Good immigration: Productive, crime stats are equal or better than natives

Bad immigration: Lazy, crime stars are worse than natives

And yes, it isn't exactly nice. Syrians are far more barbaric

I think we should rather deport natives if they have worse crime rate/productivity than immigrants.
>was
There are apparently liberal Muslims even some rarer pro gay ones.
>Syrians
I don't really get the far more barbaric part but you would have the right to be pretty pissed if you were a Pole and got shit on because of a group of Hungarians.

That's a good idea, but bleeding hearts would stop you before you get that plan off the ground.

>What was secular?

Iran. The rise of the Shah had geopolitical ramifications for developing regions around it.

>And don't act like it was only the West that is to blame

It was.

>The people willingly drank of the chalice they were provided

Because nationalist forces like Mujahadeen that condemned rights and education were funded far over than their secular comrades. Or how about Saddam?

In the same situation, men like you who only have the shallowest analysis of these events would always be first to fall for them, and yet you criticize them for failing? Nobody has the power to fight against that which is backed by the US of A.

>the systems in place to create more poor, more unwanted, more immigrants in the first place, are there
And fixing it is not as much of a priority as making it stop being a burden on the west, as it's something that is far harder to accomplish and accommodating them is not a sustainable option

>As long as The United States is in a perpetual state of war due to demand of blood on the market, or, the defense industry to supply the one thing we fund the most, you will not see change.
And how the hell do you want to fix that? By some counterproductive means that do worse harm in the process?

>the problem you seek are not immigrants but think tanks.
Yeah, that's why I'm not arguing with an immigrant. More than that is what drives these people to do what they do and who gives them power, and those are political correctness and the people vouching for it.

Well besides the part where our population starts running out and people will get deported for no real reason of their own making which shits on western values and human rights.

Probably also something having to do with country being in poverty.

And notice how we haven't got any Iranian refugees flooding into Europe?

>It was
Sure, whatever you say

>Because nationalist forces like Mujahadeen that condemned rights and education were funded far over than their secular comrades. Or how about Saddam?

Based retard.

Do you not realize the cognitive dissonance of claiming that the ME people embraced secularization, but then were forced into the past? Who are you to say, ignorant Westerner as you are?
Mayhap the people were dragged into secularization and gladly reverted to Islamism

>>Do you not realize the cognitive dissonance of claiming that the ME people embraced secularization, but then were forced into the past?

They did. But by over funding nationalists and fundamentalists who promise to do whatever the United States said, against the Soviet Union.

Do you think the Mujahadeen, or Saddam, anyone in that region at the time, came to power by Democracy?

This is a farce, you know my point well. Put into the same situation, regardless, men like you who only have the shallowest analysis of these events would always be first to fall for these nationalist powers as you currently are.

I live in Western Europe and im glad with the stronger nationalist feelings. Although I know many on Veeky Forums would despise me for that.

I don't get it. Nationalist feelings led Europe to way too many wars. Worst other things that could happen otherwise is some cultural bullshit because not enough people speak my language.

I don't think there are any comparable situations because I don't think we've ever had a society where locational identity has mattered less. We've never had a situation where tribalism or nationalism has risen because historically it has occupied the space you are worried it will start to occupy again.

The fact that they are dictators has no relation; rather, regard the fact how quickly they degenerated. If the people were really that secular, there would have been way more push back.

But clearly, struck with the white man's burden as you are, believe that you must save them from their fate

Where are you from?

Poland

Ah, but this time it is different. It is not my country vs yours, more of "ourway of life vs theirs", bound together with pan europeanism.

There will be no war between countries

Unless you consider that the reason no one goes to big wars anymore is that they cost more than they're worth and it has nothing to do with liking your country

I don't think people realize that nationalism makes local rivalries rather strong.

They think 'oh, it will preserve our "nation against those barbarians" or something, but then they don't realize is that when two nationalistic people border each other, and there is a disagreement, it gets heated. Poland is already building up its army in case Russia attacks, or something.

Retards thinking nationalism is some 'pro white' movement or something don't know shit.

>regard the fact how quickly they degenerated

This goes beyond their own election to neoliberal practice, not long after we funded Saddam that he went rogue and triggered the Gulf War, already his policy suffering the people there. Twin pronged effect made Iraq inhospitable, appealing the locals to ditch secularism by over funding their more terroristic, threats of violence by our money brought these nations to their needs.

And yet you, in utter arrogance to fact, demand the west be seen as scot free in this whole affair? What will happen when more migrants keep coming instead of leaving? What happens when you ship them back? Do you think this problem can ever be solve with your insignificant foresight?

One generation can cause much difference, for example, the past one's man was far smarter than you in the West seemingly.

I can imagine why you think that. I'm Dutch and I see my people losing its identity more and more every day due to the policies of the global, cosmopolitan elite. The fact that I want to preserve my nation's ethnic make-up, cultures and traditions does not mean I would go fight Poland because the goverment said so. In fact, many nationalist movements were high jacked by elites giving them a bad reputation but as user said I think this "nationalism", or rather national preservation, is different.

>pan europeanism.

That's globalism and multiculturalism. No matter how you look at it.

>There will be no war between countries
>hippie shit.

Oops I quoted the wrong user. I ment what this guy said.

I can't really differentiate between French way of life and let's say German or English way of life. They all seem just western or American with a bit of original cuisine and funny language. There are probably same difference between American states.
I doubt that. Our lack of wars is centered around mostly interwoven economy and even culture like shitposting on chinese image boards and NATO leftover from Cold War, and probably nukes. We've seen enough wars where those conditions weren't met recently. Even Ukraine situation was/still is dangerous. Nationalism doesn't really support either of those besides maybe nukes.

>interwoven economy
>NATO
>Nukes
Exactly why they're not worth it anymore, nationalism wouldn't change one bit

There is more or less overlapping. But trust me they differ. Roles in relationships, (work)ethics, gender roles vary quite a lot from country to country. Coming from a Dutchman with a Spanish girlfriend.

I do not claim the West is scot free, they had a big part, but it is naive to claim that the natives were just shanghaied along for the ride. Not to mention that just because some CIA directors and oil company execs ordered this strike on the ME all of the West must pay for their sins.

>What will happen when more migrants keep coming instead of leaving?
Deporting them is merely a temporary solution, I know that their problems must be fixed, but the same people that are calling for their coming into Europe are the same ones that continue to destabilize the Middle East (Iraq, Libya)
>What happens when you ship them back?
Hopefully, they die
> the past one's man was far smarter than you in the West seemingly.

Nice retort, did you perchance learn it on Reddit?

Would you mind linking it?

I'm not talking about difference between Western states (though they do indeed exist), I'm talking about the Western secular way of life vs the Muslim way of live, which cannot live together
>globe means one continent now
ok
>hippie shit
grrr, let's go to war

Except an indigenous white person, raping someone will not be the fault of race traitors who let that person's ancestors into their country.

'hey guys, this Concert of Europe will last forever'.

>Seems like Europe deserves it. It being, having their egos bruised.
Why do they deserve that?

>all of the West must pay for their sins.

never did I say "all of the west" You simply aren't fucking listening to a goddamn thing I fucking say.

I said The Western Government's must pay for the systematic destabilizing of the Middle East and South/Central America by funding nationalist coups, contras, and radicals. All for the market's survival and ideological war.

This is more sick than anything a terrorist could do.

>Deporting them is merely a temporary solution, I know that their problems must be fixed, but the same people that are calling for their coming into Europe are the same ones that continue to destabilize the Middle East (Iraq, Libya)

If you are angry at the foriegners for being violent terrorists, look no further than the United States itself.

>Hopefully, they die
Never have I lost hope for any generation faster than I am losing faith in yours. Nobody, ever, has been as stupid as the young people I see growing up today.

>Nice retort, did you perchance learn it on Reddit?

No, I'm just observing what I see. What I see is stupid.