Why is this board so full of nationalists?

Why is this board so full of communists? One would think that people """studying""" history should realize that communism is a 19th century meme

that's like your opinionoreeno

>it's this reddit thread again

Why are redditors/commies (redundant) so assblasted by nationalism? Is it because class is an actual spook and doesn't matter at all and people always choose their ethnicity and race over it? Why are commies such impotent cuckolds?

...

and liberalism is a 17th century meme, does the age of a philosophy dictate it's worth? Likewise even if communism hasn't happened how Marx said it would, it still has had a massive effect on classical liberal societies, our society has slowly moved away from free market economics as time has gone on, communism has been incredibly influential to modern governments, hence why conservatives are always bitching about all the safety nets we have. The idea of a safety net is communist in nature, the idea of unions and food stamps and all other forms of aid are influenced by communism. We live in mixture of ideologies, none of them came out of the 20th century untouched by the influence of communism. It's the most influential ideological movement since liberalism, it's a big part of history

Nationalism is cancer that destroys states and leads to unnecessary violence. People under monarchies weren't bothered too much that some group spoke another language than them and for a good reason.

>t. an actual reddit raider

a belief in nationhood is what strengthens a people, you have such a narrow world view

>Nationalism is cancer that destroys states
Nationalism built most states.

>People under monarchies weren't bothered too much that some group spoke another language than them and for a good reason
I see you're historically illiterate as well.

Communism killed millions of people more than nationalism ever did. Reddit BTFO

'Nationalism' is interchangeable with tribalism, it's a perennial entity that has never not existed. Read a book and stop living in your r/communism echo chamber. I'd say stay on Veeky Forums to educate yourself, but reddit commies must go back.

I tend to credit it to Muentzer and other protestant revolutionary types, they seem to be the germ that brought it into the reality of the modern age, imo

Nationalism and tribalism is completely different
A tribe is a bunch of people with whome you interact on a daily basis
A nation is a bunch of people who you will never see in your whole life
The idea that somebody who lives 100km away is somehow closer to you than the guy right across the border is really ridiculous

Patriotism is what strengthens people. For what nationalism worth, you can just see how well it turned out for Hungarians. Nationalism is nothing more than divide part of the divide and conquer.

Are you saying the nation concept is something created in the 19th century.
Romantic nationalism began in the 19th century, and some of nationalist ideology of today can perhaps be traced back to that time, but that seems to be the best you can do, my dude.

> Communism killed millions of people more than nationalism ever did
So what? They aren't even really exclusive.
This is why national-socialism was a thing.

blah blah blah, you don't even know what it is

>People under monarchies weren't bothered too much that some group spoke another language than them
nigga have you ever even heard of England

yes, the idea of a modern national state was created in 19th century

Fuck off. Why do you always make this thread.

This is the problem with debunked, defunct throwback social environmentalism of the 19th century. You assume these urges are created by social conditioning. They're actually inborn, kin selection is universal to almost all species of animals. Ethnic groups are big extended families, genetically. Races are a greater extension of that. A bunch of European ethnic groups that confederate into the 'white' identity when confronted by, e.g, Africans in the US (who share closer genetic ties than with Europeans), is not somehow a grand conspiracy by DA BORGOSEE to oppress your dumb made up 'class'. Why can't reddit get this?

Nations have identified with each other for millennia. You had Anglo Saxons self-identifying with other Germanic peoples in contrast to peoples like Britons. Jews, despite coming from multiple tribes, have forever been united as one ethnos. Greeks identified as 'Greek' when they lived in a place like Crete and their ethnic-kinsmen lived all the way in Thessaly or Epirus.

Stop making this thread you autistic asshole.

"Hurr durr, why do people disagree with my modern fad ideas?"

well you'll excuse me if I say that's bullshit

> Nationalism is interchangeable with tribalism
Tribalism killed more people than communism if you account numbers relative to contemporary populations. Tribal conflicts are hardcore as fuck and the only reason why communism numbers are impressive is that there were more people to kill in the 20th century than before.

Nationalism is the answer to the divide part, you retarded nigger!
The German nation was ripped apart by petty squabbling between Kinglets in the 19th century, that's YOUR example, the Romantic nationalists, contradicting YOUR idiotic argument.

That wasn't the question, faggot. The "modern national state" and "nation" are not the same thing, nor is a sense of national chauvinism and a desire that ones nation remain free from foreign rule.

And what nationalism does, is taking this inherit human insticts, and tricking human mind into projecting this sense of similarity on people he have never seen or will see
So while the basic instinct has existed forever, this trickery is an invention of 19th century

Mr. Redditor thinks tribalism isn't synonymous, and thus that is the logic. Tribalism is natural to Humanity, as it is to our ape ancestors and contemporary related species. It's amazing that something made up and entirely a spook like communism has ever inspired such millionaire massacres. Thank god it's a dead meme only carried on by autistic basement dwelling traps.

why don't you go then and live off in the wilderness like a damned animal you sodding hippie

> Let's destroy our century old great power for memes!
> Surely Hungarian nation would be relevant after that!
Nationalistic logic, everyone. This is why they are always first to side with literal invaders in every fucking war, they got no loyalty to the state and zero understanding what it means to be a patriot.

You don't have to see them to have similar DNA or be a part of the same wide cultural context, you pedophile

No, because of the reasons I just laid out for you. Greeks were identifying as Greeks in the classical period. Germanics identified as Germanics in the classical world forward. Jews of many tribes they never interacted with still identified with Jews and showed kin-preference for fellow Jews than gentiles.

You are objectively wrong.

>being a patriot means siding with your state against your nation
retarded

my conscience is clear when the state and my nation are one faggot

But bruh, they never seent'd eachuver, bruh! Just think about how DEEP that is.....

> spook like communism has ever inspired such millionaire massacres
Most of them were killed by mismanagement of resources, not some sort of malicious massacre.

but those people weren't nationalistic, they didn't want to live in a nation that combines all the people of the culture.
For example, people of many different cultures lived in Roman Empire

instead you should follow instinctive tribalism like a damned animal

And then it fractured apart

wow, really makes you think.

first you have said that it's a trick or made up for you to have any bonds with people you are related to, and then you say you must accept a state that may not be to the benefit of your own nation or people, make up your mind, you sound like a hippie, but then you claim you should be fine with being ruled by an elite that doesn't share your nationhood

>Is it because class is an actual spook and doesn't matter at all and people always choose their ethnicity and race over it?
What do you base this on? Not saying it is not so, just wondering how you arrived to this conclusion.

>a state that has spooked itself into oblivion ruled by an elite can use an army to force a bunch of ethnicities to stay in their spooky state

Wow. Really makes me think. Ignore all the separatist rebellions and continued tribalism of each population.

You have been proven wrong. Ethnicity as identity has always been around, because of genetics and biological realities like kin-selection. People have identified with an ethnic group they are genetically a part of juxtaposed to foreign, less or unrelated ethnic groups, since forever. Don't start moving the goalposts, reddit.

We are animals, that's inescapable. Trying too hard to avoid that leads to misery. Yet our nature should be reigned in where it leads to violence.
This is why national bolshevism is literally the only answer. People get to stay in their ethnic homes where they're more comfortable with each other, yet they live in co-operation and harmony, with no capital to drive unnecessary conflict, and with the only hierarchy being in place to ensure healthy relationships between all men.

>class is an actual spook and doesn't matter at all
This can't be a serious post.

Don't be mistaken. The nation without a state is just bunch of shared delusions. Name one nation that was successful without the state. You can't. Because the state is what allows civilization to exist and your nation is just a byproduct of that.

The Kurds are still kicking

I can see why. From an academic standpoint that strives for objectivity you wouldn't expect nationalism since it often romanticizes the past and hides uncomfortable realities. Most people on this board are not academics, they are history enthusiasts that lack the discipline historians are supposed to have. History enthusiasts naturally have a love of culture whether it be their own or cultures in general. Preservation of culture is often tied to nationalist thinking since it often gets shoved aside for globalization.

In what world Cards amount to anything?

I would argue that nationalism was a necessary intermediate stage.
But history has shown us that national states lead to world wars.
Thus we now understand that we have to overcome nationalism and create a globalist world were wars become impossible

They're a people, and that's what matters. Not everybody needs to be a power play, you sociopath.

>I'm a commie loser that has been debunked so now I'm just going to blurt my pipe dream pure ideology at you

Alright. I hope the trip back to r*ddit you inevitably make isn't too rocky.

>But history has shown us that national states lead to world wars
No, it doesn't.

and so did the people of Poland, regardless of the duplicitous Russians, tyrannical Germans, decadent Austrians, and all else.

world war I and II beg to differ

Look at its resurgance in world at large. Many people now percieve a failure of globalistic philosphy in that they seem to be suffering at home for the sake of some simplistic moral principle espoused by out-of-touch elites. The blatant rise of Islamic terrorism being answered with empty platitudes for peace and understanding is one issue. Growing economic inequality (blamed on globalism, right or wrong) is another strong factor. Why be part of a global community that doesn't seem to "get it" whereas plenty of people at home do?

To be honest, people of Poland would be better off if they were fully Germanized

I think you're spot on, save for some particular details. I do not think everybody here is unaware of what you call "uncomfortable" realities, but more they simply see them in their contexts and do not feel it's necessary to harp on about them.

At least, that's some of us. Others can argue back and forth about whether Hitler or Stalin were the meaniest.

> They're a people, and that's what matters.
You can defend anyone from internet furries to like amazon tribes with that argument.

Both started by globalists.

>Why is this board so full of nationalists?
Invading /pol/turds who need to follow their leader.

Veeky Forums is a Marxist board.

A very small fraction of time compared to the era of nation-states. On top of this, nationalism really had nothing to do with those conflicts, but militarism which is not necessarily inherent to nationalism. TMYK. To say nationalism is responsible for those conflicts is a pre-entry level view of them that even entry level reading debunks.

>we need to force all these people who don't like each other into one BIIIIIIG state where they will end up fighting low intensity ethnic or racial warfare against one another until they explode into mass revolt against the global hegemony

there have always been reactionary movements, wanting to return to times long passed.
But as a species, we can't move backwards, we have to find new solutions to the problems we face

>>>/reddit/

Being a part of a global community is what made the country like America strong at the first place.

I'm only pointing out factors that seem to be leading to the new Nationalistic wave, not attaching any judgement to it. It definitely is reactionary, but we need to know why in order to effectively address the matter in any capacity

nationalism was created in 19th century and 20th century saw two world wars. Doesn't sound like such a long time to me.

>On top of this, nationalism really had nothing to do with those conflicts, but militarism which is not necessarily inherent to nationalism.
militarism is the logical conclusion of nationalism.

oh yeah, just look at EU, full of low intensity ethnic or racial warfare

WWI is a conflict between a mad monarchy and its very multinational ally, a rival monarchy, and two liberal empires.
WWII was one between those same two liberal empires plus a third, 3 nationalist states, and a socialist empire.

To blame both wars on "nationalism" is oversimplification of a truly immense order. If you want one word or concept to blame the two conflicts on, it's "imperialism". Even that seems to beg the question of how different things may be if all of the empires in questions shared some ideology, or even if Wilhelm just understood wtf a parliament even was.

How is nationalism not responsible if it created united Germany and therefore destroyed power balance of Europe? I call bullshit here.

Late 19th century globalism and 21st century globalism are on such different levels that it can easily said to be a false equivalence.

>militarism is the logical conclusion of nationalism
No, it isn't, you fucking retard.

If you loosen it up enough, yeah, but I think most people can differentiate between things like "the kurds" and things like "some fetishists on tumblr"

As a big cuck, I also think the amazonian tribes should be left alone

among white people it's pretty cool

you only need to look at all the globalist non-white importation policies to see why jamming incompatible races together is fucking retarded, hint hint, child rape across the UK, rapes in germany, black gang violence in france, north africans/arabs in france, black gang violence london

>World War I and II had nothing to do with nationalism
Yes and the American Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, I bet.

but nationalism causes such nets of evershifting alliances, which can lead to wars pretty soon

apart from that "imperialism" is not really a thing. It is what every country does when it is strong

you are positively plebeian

You fucking commies are evil at this point to continue trying to enforce your madness on us.

I would like to point out that America by and large detested the idea of being beholden to anyone but was fairly comfortable with international shenanigans so long as America was clearly on top.

what a lot of stark raving nonsense

>among white people it's pretty cool
50 years ago, somebody from england or germany would never view slavs as their equals.
50 years from now, we might see middle eastern as fellow white people

You only see all of white people as your own because globalism marches on. Otherwise you would view everybody not of your nationality as inferiour

> most powerful companies in history
> privately owned states like congo
> unregulated as fuck migrations
> insane amounts of foreign investments
19th-century globalism was even more hardcore that current one user

t. underage contrarian

you don't know anything, America was not about bandying its control over the world, never was, it only came to pass that our stewardship was required after two world wars and an expansionist degenerative worldwide dogma sought to do tremendous damage before it collapsed

Anti-nationalism is a meme for pampered middle and upper class liberal Westerners without.any life experience.
Everywhere else in the world people have strong national identities and don't give a fuck about liberal fantasies.

You have such a simplified understanding of history and of the word "nation" that it almost seems useless to talk to you.

>romantic nationalism
>????
>WWI and WWII

Do you really think that's all the 19th and 20th centuries looked like?
You probably don't, you seem to repeat "nationalism was created in the 19th century" over and over like some ideologue chanting slogans.

what made America strong was slavery and oppression of the natives so it got plenty of resources and cheap labor that other countries didn't have

I'm a nationalist.
Socialism and Nationalism are the only way forward desu.

that's pure bullshit

>"imperialism" is not really a thing
Well okay then, my nigga. I don't even know where tf you're at rn

>Everywhere else in the world people are illiterate, low IQ, and ignorant of history
ftfy

This thread has basically proven that lefties and liberals have no business doing history desu.

Why don't you guys stick to sociology or literature or something?