Nationalism

Read Mishima.

dude seppuku lmao isn't a citable source unfortunately

Do you want modern nationalism or romantic nationalism?

Rousseau's Discourses + Heidegger's Memorial Address can help a babby into these types of ideas.

Max Stirner, the ego and his own.

Nationalism is reality. We're all nationalists... it's just that your nation doesn't control any land

>im proud to have been born on this plot of land which is dominated by people who aren't me

well said, I also take pride in "my" "race's" accomplishments in which I did nothing to further.

is nationalism moral? im leaning towards no, but i need to think about it more. it sure has caused a lot of immoral consequences in the world thats for sure.
a better question would be, is nationalist 'rational'? that would be an immediate no. it makes no fucking sense to be nationalist, thats why

>it's irrational to associate with people who share the same values as you and help them prosper

?????

>Implying you necessarily share the reigning values upong your nation.

Your nation IS those who you share values with. You're applying an idiosyncratic definition of a nation as "a plot of land" with borders around it. That would be a country.

Nation ≠ State

You are wrong as well, an example of a nation would be ancient Greece, similar culture and race but not under one rule. A state without a nation would be something like Iraq with loads of minorities that do not identity or support each other and want independence. A nation state would be a country like modern Russia or Japan.

wait, what? whats the point even calling it nationalism then? why not have a better word for it by now?

>thinks russia isn't split into autonomous minorities regions who don't identify or support each other.

It's not an issue of morality, it just doesn't add anything to people's lives other than a vague sense of pride + causes a lot of unnecessary conflict/death.

Is nationalism is defined as "putting the interest of your country over other nations", then yes it is perfectly moral. In the same way that you put the interest of your family over other families.

Best book on the birth of and childhood of nationalism, and its interplay with infant socialism that i have ever read

B-b-but Hitler

This thread is terrible.

Read pic related to at least give yourself some foundational understanding of the history of differing nationalistic ideologies and ideas.

any moral argument for nationalism must account for its genocides

>calls people cucks
>believes in nationalism, an ideology that would punish you for being a neckbeard who posts frogs online all day

literally what did they mean by this? I know /pol/ doesn't read but still

if every country was nationalist, there would be no genocide

If we were living in Gravity's Rainbow Pynchon would write a passage about how they only support it because they'd be forced to procreate with attractive white women to "save their race" like the Mineshaft Gap in Dr. Strangelove

>leaders of nation want profit
>don't actually give a shit about race or religion, that's a tool to control lowbrow proles
>war and genocide make profit
>"if all countries were nationalistic, we wouldn't have war"

really makes u think

>any moral argument must be consequentialist

Ummmmm no... wew Veeky Forums is full of brainlets

>leaders dont care about race or religion

This is never true. This is one thing that Marxists have always been totally incorrect about.

Modern;

Mad cuck? Go prep the bull

I don't know if it's moral, but forcing countries to be globalist is certainly not any more moral.

*any moral argument for the specific kind of nationalism employed

It's like saying hippie communes and Soviet gulags are on par because they share a basis in ideology.

Shared culture doesn't imply shared values.

You must sustent your claim of morality. Isn't it in fact selfish to put your families interest above others? Isn't it more moral to put humanity's interests above all? Even christianity, in all its moral bankruptcy, preaches the abandonment of the family to follow Christ.

Nationalism only works/worked when it was paired with liberalism.
Just look at 1848 so called spring of nations.
based on that I'd say that it's pretty useful for nation building, but once that happens, it's not that useful any more.

>Isn't it in fact selfish to put your families interest above others?

Yes, but there is nothing wrong with being selfish.

Telling people they cannot give prefernece to their own families is far more evil, than actually giving preference to your own family.

Do you really believe people shouldn't prioritize their own children over others?

>Telling people they cannot give prefernece to their own families is far more evil

why?

>race and country = family

kys

I'm saying there's no reason to claim that doing so (giving preference to your family) is more moral.

Because you are asking humans to suppress their most basic instincts for the sake of the collective. You are basically saying that individual preference has no place in your society.

He's clearly talking out of his ass. Christianity "preaches the abandonment of the family"? Nigga wat.

Your only purpose on this blue marble- if we can call it that- is to pass on your genes. Failing to do that essentially renders your life a failure. Family is everything.

A line of reasoning was made earlier in which they started from nation and ended in family. There's obviously a relationship, even if it's not a perfect analogy.

I honestly do not have a "logical" answer to that question, but I would never want to live in a society where giving preference to your own children is seen as evil. That just seems incredibly perverse.

Nationalism is arbitrary, if your country has done you right it is moral to love it, if contrary then no.

Ethnic pride is more important, your bloodline is the most important relationship in life. Which is completely irrelevant to modern national identities due to multiculturalism

>Isn't it more moral to put humanity's interests above all?

It would be in humanity's interest if everyone acted in their own self interest

Apostles, Christ. Too obvious to provide citations.

>Your only purpose on this blue marble- if we can call it that- is to pass on your genes. Failing to do that essentially renders your life a failure. Family is everything.

Under this line of reasoning an argument could be made for the purpose of life being eating and shitting, as they're too biological functions. You're rendering reproduction as more important arbitrarily.

>basic instincts

lol

That implies people know what's they're best interest.

that's been the basis for hunter-gather/tribal societies. are they perverse?

It's not irrelevant, notice how most people still vote along ethnic lines. And notice how most people still segregate themselves.

life's purpose*

surely government, experts and "friends of mankind" will find out for him

modern? it's been irrelevant for human history. symbolic kinship has always existed and people have always migrated and blended together.

Why is bloodline more important?

Nations in history were always focused around ethnic groups, multicultural mixed states are a modern invention.

no they aren't. ethnicity is the modern concept.

Kek nah, Europe has been multicultural for at least 2000 years

>Ancient Rome is a modern invention

under christian umbrella which destroyed all heresies pretty efficiently.

You can be heretic only if you were Christian in the first place

And the inquisition started in the 13th century if I remember correctly

Just wrong

>conquest and subjugation are ethnic mixing
>all races were treated equally in rome
Wow interesting user

Everyone was allowed to keep their religion and culture so long as they saluted and worshipped the Emperor as well. It really was multicultural.

>just wrong

not an argument.

not to mentioned that "romans" started with intermarriage and cultural exchange between Etruscans and Romans.

>conquest and subjugation
That's a retarded view to think that all the migrations that happened during Ancient Rome and after that were products of wars and conquests

Am I a nationalist if I don't want my country to become more Islamic?

every greek tribe had a legendary hero forefather which in turn was the son of a god. you think they did it as tourism attraction?

I'd wager the neckbeard among all others would actually be the most acutely aware of the suffering caused by social alienation and lack of a larger purpose or structure to provide meaning to his life. Perhaps it is too late for him to become some kind of ubermensch, but be drawn to an ideology that could save others from the suffering of being cast adrift by the world that tortures him.

Absolutely awful thread. is the only one who has a clue what he's talking about.

Almost all non-academic discussions of nationalism are a complete non-starter because everyone understands something different by the term. That's why you always get aimless arguments like in this thread that conflate nationalism and patriotism, or nationalism and right-wing politics, or nations and states. So OP, if you want to read about nationalism you need to begin with a theoretical basis and definitions. Benedict Anderson ("Imagined Communities") is a good start here and kind of a classic, and Ernest Gellner ("Nations and Nationalism") defines the political ideology expressed by the term and traces its origins to modernity and industrialisation.

The topic of morality and nationalism is an interesting one but also subject to the kind of problems inherent with having two difficult-to-define terms. But I'd recommend reading Neal Ascherson's address to the Scottish National Party conference in 1986 - it's called "Don't Be Afraid, And Don't Steal!' and is in his collection Games With Shadows. I can't find it online but it might be there somewhere. He talks about the moral element - as opposed to economic, political, etc. - of Scottish, Czech and Polish nationalist movements. And on that note, it's worth stressing that talking about "nationalism" in general rather than specific nationalisms is usually unlikely to produce much in the way of insightful comment, as this thread demonstrates. Stick to general theory or the consideration of individual movements if you want to make sense of it, that would be my advice.

No, that alone doesn't inherently make you a nationalist.

Multiculturalism is the mixing of cultures/races, in empires there is subjugation under one government but usually little ethic migration and mixing.

The sky is 1000 feet tall

That would explain why the main proponents of collectivist ideologies are all complete losers.

>need nationalism to find purpose
That's really dumb user

all people mythologise themselves. has nothing to do with ethnicity. the aeneid contradicts romulus and remus. turks and mongolians shared all the same folk stories. etc.

hobsbawm's "invention of tradition" belongs to same genre.
somehow this scientific consensus never reaches countries like ukraine.

I hope all non-nationalist fags enjoy being raped by supranational corporation world govt.

There was ethnic migration and mixing in Rome though. Not at the level of today but it did happen and was thus multicultural.

juvenal complained about foreigners and loss of identity in his satires. why should he complain if there were no "romans"?

He meant that Etruscans had been mixed and assimilated into the Roman people.

to juvenal someone from umbria was a foreigner. he also liked the jews well enough. "romans" implying that they were the admixture of two peoples from the beginning.

Yes, but Hobsbawm is pretty clearly opposed to nationalism on principle and as a result I don't think he treats it with appropriate academic distance. Anderson-Gellner-Hobsbawm is the holy trinity of nationalism studies but the first two actually seem to handle it as a sociological phenomenon rather than trying to turn the study into political point scoring, so I prefer to recommend them over Hobsbawm.

What do you mean about Ukraine? You mean it doesn't reach the academia there, or that the theories don't fit what's happening in the country's politics and on the ground?

How? It seems perfectly coherent to me

i meant that the same government and its think tanks legitimize and ampflify nationalism (with oldschool stuff like common language and customs) in one country while delegitimizing it at home with "imagined communities" consensus, which indicates arbitrary activism and not research.

That's sad, you could find purpose elsewhere, you are stuck in your own ideology, you said you need nationalism to have a purpose yet you talk like you know it won't happen, so basically you're giving up on finding what you want to find and justifying your current lifestyle by your context, putting the blame on others and forcing you to never change

I'm just sad for you not even arguing

I didn't say any of that though, I was stating a theory on why neckbeards in particular would be attracted to nationalism. I never mentioned my personal attitude towards nationalism.

I do think it is sad, however, but only for the fact that the huge rise in nationalism recently certainly indicates just how alienated a large portion of young men in particular are in our current society.