Separatism

Do you guys think separatist and secessionist movements will shape the future political landscape? Why should we all live under democracy and be mad at each other when we don't have our way when we can simply self-segregate into racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious micro-states and covenants?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/uChN6jDsMPE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

well, why not?

Not sure dude, but how we are now, is not working, we need a complete new political system. Also, we have nationalists who don't want to change.

Why is London not a separists state on that map

>no donetsk or lugansk

Return to city-states
W H E N
H
E
N

Leftist invention, just like nationalism, was, is and forever will be utterly degenerate

no, separatists will always be and SHOULD always be heavily fought against, as if one can go then the others can go. I am not trying to commit slippery slope, its historically true. And example is in the American Civil War, once the South left because they viewed secession as legitimate states tried to leave the confederacy when things didn't go their way (I believe the specific state that made an attempt was either Mississippi or Alabama.) Also see Austria Hungary and its entire mess.

There are certain exceptions, for example Poland where it was previously a country that was conquered and the Netherlands/America where they were very separated from their country by geography and shat upon economically and politically. As an example of a country that definitely should NOT be independent is Catalonia.

Democracy and the things we stand for are incompatible. Democracy (mob rule) is incompatible with the notion of private property, traditional values, small government. It simply doesn't work.

Separatism and secession are the antidotes to democracy. Movements like these imply a breaking away of a minority from a majority, i.e. a tremendous anti-democracy showcase. That's why the media so heavily invested in anti-Brexit propaganda and why the EU is so mad about it. The Brits showed a dislike of EU "democracy".

In my opinion, segregated covenants and private communities, unified with each other only through voluntary trade (free markets) and immigration-by-invitation (wherein the person who invites an immigrant becomes responsible for all property damages caused during his stay or until he purchases real-estate), are what we need if Europeans are to survive in our homelands.

Break up the Eu into sovereign states, then break those up into cantons, districts, micro-states, city-states, autonomous regions, etc.

Then we will have a beautiful and truly diverse mosaic of European peoples and cultures.

We need to separate further, that map is still not autistic enough for me.

yeah we had those in tribal era, guess what superior system aka monarchy won
those smaller countries would be exploited by everyone around

You mean terrorist enclave ?

You may have right, but we still need some common points, like common borders. But I actually like the idea of micro-federalization, because in that way we can avoid freaking ethic conflicts inside Europe.

>sami flag

Even samis hate sami governance.

Sametinget was a mistake.

First pay your debts

>superior system aka monarchy won
on point.

not to forget that democracy only works in small city-states (for example Athens, Thebes etc.). I forgot was it Jean Jack Russo or Machiavelli who said that democracy ONLY works in such small societies, city-states . Democracy can't function in multi-million societies. Democracy is obsolete.

OH YES

well, at least add the papal state

Yes, that's what I mean. Having countries pre-EU is not enough. Irreparable cultural damages have been made throughout the decades (think progressives vs. conservatives, liberals vs. not-so-liberals, nationalists, vs. internationalists, etc.). We need to break up the countries into several micro-states and other arrangements (see my above post). That why we can avoid democracy all together (and perhaps return to aristocracy or kingdoms) — or at least restrict it to like-minded people and thus avoid cultural, ethnic, religious, etc. clashes — and each live separately but in peace.

I think that is the hardest part. I think private property is the answer. Instead of separating entire geographical areas, we engage (read: radicalize) people in neighborhoods and small cities and push for decentralization and eventually secession. Private covenant communities, private neighborhoods, private cities, and eventually the European states collapse and we return to the "natural order" of traditional households, private property and aristocratic natural elites.

Wrong. Northern Ireland should be shown on the map as it only remains part of the UK because the majority of it's people want to be separate to the Republic in the South.

probably without paying their debts will end up spiltted in city-states

kys fag

>france
>separatists

the one who made this map clearly dont know anything about france

>No Donetsk and Luhansk

>Leftist invention
>just like nationalism
>nationalism
>leftist invention
Care to explain?

Macedonia you are totally right. Democracy is grotesquely antagonistic to private property and the Western way of life. People do not realize that the nuclear family (monogamous patriarchal households) arose from the idea that lands were privately-owned and having children, raised by a loving household, would lead to generational improvements in wealth and manpower. That's why communists hate the traditional family. The traditional family is an outgrowth of the idea of private property.

Only when people realize that mob rule is inherently against property will we realize what must be done. Let's just hope it's not too late.

lol there's only actually like 2 separatist movements trying to go on in Spain... and they're not precisely the most consistent things you've seen around anyway.

but yeah there isn't that much wrong with making even more borders... as long as turkey doesn't join europe. the rest's fine, leave it be.

>pic related most separatists

>no Prussia

Not gonna happen, that;s basically called, divide and conquer.

Monarchy won? You mean that thing whose absence marks the western world?

If anything, Aristocracy may be better than Democracy at times. Monarchy is a flawed, barbaric and low-energy system made for unintelligent masses.

We are living under Socialism and Capitalism is taking the rap of these crippling social programs which glut our American Capitalist Safety Net with people who cannot take business chances.

Indeed, but it's forced integration that's destroying our countries. Having more borders, not less, is the solution. That way the nationalists can have their covenants, the communists theirs, the cosmopolitans theirs, and we only had to deal with each other on trade. Then, finally, we'd see who would out-compete the others (spoiler: the traditional and patriarchal family household covenants would win).

>state education

embarrassing user. Truly embarrassing

We still need to have army, else islamists will freaking kill us all.

I CAN NAME ALL OF THEM

>Ireland
>Only exists due to conquest
>Real country

Nationalism started around the time of the French revolution. Republican, Jacobin and others anti-royalist were nationalist, as the whole idea was having the nation being in charge of it's own destiny. And the republicans were the leftist of the time, so yes it's a leftist invention.

Leftists stopped in general being nationalist when they started being internationalist, or globalist.

Alsatian separatist here, but it's just a pipe dream. We need France (who created the whole mess in the first place) to kick the mudslime out of France.

>Italy completely balkanised
>Germany isn't
Map was literally made by a prussiaboo desu

The moment you get the state out of zoning and residential controls all the undesirables are expelled. And once you say "you are hereby responsible for any property damages your immigrant does during his stay" people will think twice before importing third world trash into Europe.

this.

Um...laisse moi réfléchir, Joao...

Once country for every ethnic group is the ideal imo.

Not really leftist, but nationalism grew out of the idea of Liberalism in that the will of the ruled matters more than the ruler's. Its based around the individual even though it's collectivist

Where mixed familys should go?:D

As I said, Democracy is not perfect and I agree that it's not quite as applicable on the large scale. That's why Aristocracy on top of strong regional administration is the ideal political system.

To break it down for you considering (quite ironically) you don't speak Greek, Aristocracy means "authority of the excellent". Monarchy depends on blood ties, aristocracy depends on mental capacity to command. It allows the excellent to rise up among the ranks and prevents retarded blue-blooded inbreds from driving nations to ruin.

In a way, Aristocracy is power to the people -- but only the people who deserve it. The Byzantine Empire was exactly that. See Justinian, for example. From orphan pleb, to arguably the greatest Byzantine Emperor.

...

Most likely they would be integrated into the countries where the people are culturally similar to them. But it's a non-issue, mixed families are relatively rare and would quickly disappear in these societies we are describing. Genetic impoverishment is nowadays associated with mixed families, and is thus against the "natural order."

I think that's autocracy not aristocracy.

One way or the other the concept of National Identity predates the French revolution, the real innovation of the left (which was radically different back then) was that they introduced the concept of the social contract.

You are correct. Aristocracy > Feudalism > Absolute monarchy > Constitutional Monarchy >>>>>> Democracy

Hmm... my wife is Spanish.. wtf dude?

>Hoppe

my nigga.

Kuehnelt Leddihn is pretty based too.

I agree
where aristocracy is really just classical monarchy
and absolute monarchy was just the decadent version by that french madman

he wrote leftism revisited which I recommend

he was absolutely unapologetic about writing as a conservative christian right in the first chapter I liked that

yes.

Although Liberty or Equality is his magnum opus.

Thanks abdul

>Kuehnelt Leddihn
Damn right he is.

Glad to see Macedonianbro sharing my extreme anti-left values.

That map is TRUE multiculturalism at work.

Yup, you're right.

>nationalists and separatists are actually the ones who highly value multicultural societies

Bavaria needs to be its own country.

imagine portugal in spain's rule
that shit wouldn't be pretty

Who the fuck gave Samis so much land

Lol they'd get their asses kicked like last time. But people themselves simply want to be left alone and trade with each other (positive integration). It's states who push for imperialism, so they have more subjects to tax and resources to plunder.

This can't be stressed enough. Nationalists are the true protectors of multiculturalism and diversity. Today's "multiculturalist" liberals really just support the existence of a one-dimensional society of dick-waving, rainbow-haired, burqa-wearing, attack-helicopter-identifying brown people.

KILL YOURSELF FAGIT WESTAMOUNT

Aristocracy cannot survive without monarchy, and monarchy cannot survive without Aristocracy.

Example for this can be the predecessor of the electoral college.

Princes in Roman controlled territories of today Germany decided who to be their king. The princes being the aristocratic elite who then elect their king (thus becoming a monarchy). A king is needed to unite them all, at least formally, look at Gaddafi

>dick-waving, rainbow-haired, burqa-wearing, attack-helicopter-identifying brown people

that does sound more diverse than what most retarded right-wing nationalists would like to promote

Nah, stateless Aristocracies exist fine.

>KILL YOURSELF FAGIT WESTAMOUNT

Meth head du midwest sperg out...

youtu.be/uChN6jDsMPE

fixed it for you

elective monarchy seems fine to me also famalam

utter nonsense

rorkes fetishise monocultural societies and want to take away your own choice of your identity

they don't give a shit about other cultures

>See Justinian, for example

he was a loser who married a whore (would be called 'cuck' on Sup Forums if he were contemporary) and exhausted byzantium with his attempts to re-expaned to the west. he's one of the main reasons the slavtard you're speaking to lives in the Balkans and calls himself "Macedonian"

truly the greatest of emperors

>people dont have the right to self determination
>we should all bow down to the Feds and adhere to agreements permanently because its always good for us

kys you stupid shart. I bet you think that BREXIT shouldnt have happened either.

>Ingria
>Kola

nice memes

Not as well as the former

>implying Italy is better off now as a shithole run by Sardinians Germany and Jewish Feds

A world society that encompasses only one single type of people, them being
>dick-waving, rainbow-haired, burqa-wearing, attack-helicopter-identifying brown people
is by definition non-diverse.

A diverse society contains Greeks, Germans, Egyptians, Arabs, Persians, Mexicans and everything in between, living harmonically and trading ideas -- each on their own country.

That's true diversity. Brainless openness and rejection of ethnicity is not diverse.

That's perfect except I don't like Nazism.

NOPE, I'm not on meth. you're just a faggot fuck you

>Cornwall Independence.

>protestants
>people

>right wing nationalists

have you heard about left wing nationalism? or you can't wrap that around your tiny little mind?

>each on their own country

Go on rorke, why is this a requisite?

The sad thing is that there would probably be some sort of centralised equivalent to the EU or HRE. It would have hegemony and would suppress what makes each of these states great.

For peaceful social living and cooperation between peoples. Forced integration (modern multiculturalism) leads to the degeneration of moral conduct and civilized living. See your country and Sweden as the prime examples of this.

>No North of England separate.
>'separatist' map
k

>leads to the degeneration of moral conduct and civilized living

Nah it doesn't. I most likely live in a far more multicultural area than you do, and my life is perfectly peaceful, social and cooperative.

Why do you want to take away people's choice of living in non-monotonous societies?

>Northern Italy independent
>Turkey completely dissolved
>norn Iron returned properly
I like you

>is by definition non-diverse

you haven't shown that. if anything, I see more diversity in your le funny meme than most (yes, not all, of course) nationalists would like

then you go from le funny meme to random ethnicities, as if those would suddenly disappear under your hypothetical "world society" or if by definition an ethnicity is "diversity". yes 1 million Golden Dawn drones sure are diverse

I agree with you though. we need to break down Greece into its regions and all of us can go our merry ways. this artificial nationalism is choking our regional identities!

>Why do you want to take away people's choice of living in non-monotonous societies?
I don't.

It's the people who want to live in non-monotonous societies who are impeding me from living in my monotonous society. Hence, secession and decentralization. Private neighborhoods, cities, villages, etc. This was fairly common up until the 19th century. You had towns with signs saying "No beggars, alcoholics, etc." and people still had the right to include or exclude whomever they wanted in their property (freedom of association, nowadays called "discrimination," as if it were something bad).

If we were to have these societies, I'm sure the bigger cities and communities could have elements of present multiculturalism. It was in the cities where the merchants congregated to sell their goods. That's why mixed marriages were (are?) more prevalent in cities; merchants married to other families of merchants to increase their joint family revenues. People like myself would have our ethnically-centered communities, people like you would have your cosmopolitan area, traditionalists would have theirs, etc.

>It's the people who want to live in non-monotonous societies who are impeding me from living in my monotonous society

Wrong, you can easily achieve what you want today.

Don't really feel a need to address the rest of your nerdy drivel

>Forced integration (modern multiculturalism) leads to the degeneration of moral conduct and civilized living

nationalism leads to the degeneration of moral conduct and civilized living.

proof: commiting genocide. not moral conduct or civilized!

Whatever you say, kraut.

The genocide committed by Hitler & Co. was imperialistic and statist in itself. The whole point of secession and separatism is to take away the power from the state to become totalitarian and/or to usurp people's private property rights. This is what's happening in Europe right now whether you recognize it or not.

>The whole point of secession and separatism is to take away the power from the state to become totalitarian and/or to usurp people's private property rights

Uh no, that's liberalism

All secessionists want is control over the purse strings

and how does decentralization necessarily stop that? look at the Balkans, the fighting continued even after the separate nation-states were set up (the Bulgarians kept trying up to WW2)

it's other factors that cause this. Europe was more decentralized than other parts of the world and war, internal oppression etc. continued

there is a weird alliance of hyper-libertarians and nationalists on this board that is full of tension

I like your ideas but I feel they might be too Utopic and unfeasible in practice. What is preventing a larger "city-state" from swallowing up a smaller one? I feel like the small aristocrastic societies of the middle ages where possible in the historical context they existed.

As mechanisms of societal control developed (religion, printing, literacy, bureaucracies, etc) it became increasingly easy for a larger state to form and coordinate its different parts. So how do you actively prevent a larger state to form, since this seems to be the natural norm?

Don't waste your time, he is obviously a city rat who can't think of a world without his beloved centralization. He will never realize that he is actually contributing, taking away the rights from people who don't want to have anything to do with him, who just want to command their own houses/villages without being restrained by special rules made by an abstract entity created by a mass of alienated sheeps, called "state".

Fucking modern scum. I would love to have them around here for a couple of days, they would sweat blood.

>What is preventing a larger "city-state" from swallowing up a smaller one?

Personally, I don't want to totally disolve the state, but to limit its functions.

For example, we could still have a common army, precisely to intervene if someone tries to take over the rights of others.

It can be done. In practice, it wouldn't be perfect. But nothing is. Legislation always has holes here and there.

If you mean classical liberalism, it wasn't enough. Classical liberals failed to recognize that a democratic state (or a state in and of itself) is incompatible with the notion of private property and the rights of people.

Secessionists want to break away from a tyrannical majority, otherwise they'd stay with them.

>and how does decentralization necessarily stop that?
decentralization accompanied with a reduction of state power reduces the state's aggression against private property owners and domestic residents. The state, through lax immigration laws and confiscatory policies (eminent domain, ridiculously high taxes, anti-discrimination laws), increases social tension between the races, the sexes, the castes, the family, etc. Look at public education. Look at marriage laws. Look at employment laws. They've all been corrupted into weakening, and ultimately hellbent on destroying, the last shred of private life untouched by the state. It speaks volumes when the patriarchs of households are no longer the main authority figures in public life.

The less state you have, the less imperialism you will have, the less wars you will have, the less confiscation you will have. Now apply this to a scenario where only property covenants and voluntary arrangements exist. People will only be in conflict regarding disputed territory where property rights are muddled. And on which grounds are property rights muddled Public property!

>What is preventing a larger "city-state" from swallowing up a smaller one?
People of the city-state who may not want to engage with or life in the same neighborhoods as the people in the smaller one. The point of decentralization is to eliminate property trampling by states (read what I said to the Greekbro on this post). It is states who push for "swallowing up" other states so they increase their taxation revenue. Substituting statist democracies with anti-democratic aristocracies would be the solution.