Nationalism

Okay pol, I need some political advice. I'm tasked with creating a research paper in my English class, and I've decided to use the argument of:

"Is nationalism harmful to a society?"
(An explanation would be appreciated as to why or why not)

I've already found some sources on this topic, but I'm unsure as to which side I should defend. (Albeit I lean towards nationalism a bit)

That's where you guys come in. Anyone got sources of information (any kind will do) that can point which way? Any help is appreciated.

I'll be incorporating this information in whichever fashion I see fit, whether it be concession points, or arguments.

Thanks in advance.

>inb4 not your personal database

Other urls found in this thread:

americanthinker.com/articles/2012/01/ameritopia_mark_levin_connects_the_dot.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Shameless self-bump

change that sign to say multiculturalism or globalism

Im an english guru.

A question is not an argument

My apologies. The argument is:

"yes, nationalism is bad" or, "no, it isn't."

If you are unsure about nationalism, then go fuck yourself with a 2 litre bottle

>(((Einstein)))

how old are you

nationalism makes society closer knit and more ambitioned. When you have a common goal, it melts you together.
A nation united has better means to represent themselves on the global scale. The opposite is the totally unbiased free market - where many in the nation will accept breach of sovereignity and conspiring with strangers to help no-one but themselves. Importing of cheap products, oursourcing, prefering to deal with countries like vietnam rather than your own people.

make your own arguments you inept faggot if you can't make up your mind over nationalism of all things you may as well fuck off from life as well as Sup Forums

>germany preaching nationalism

even letting foreigners move into the city before your own rural people. This one will be recepted well though

not be*

1. Language
2. Borders
3. Culture

^ OP will have to mention these realities and contrast them with the utopian mindset: "One language, no borders, and one culture or sameness."

That is to say, if the utopian ideal is not practical or not achievable, then nationalism is the next best (and more preferable) ideal.

Reasons against utopianism: americanthinker.com/articles/2012/01/ameritopia_mark_levin_connects_the_dot.html

Note citations of Plato, More's Utopia, Marx, etc. All forms of Progressivism have utopian roots.

Nationalism sucks and globalism sucks more.

Fuck off and leave me alone

t. The South

Before even picking a side and arguing you need to define nationalism, harmful, and society in your paper.

Good advice. Something like, "By 'Nationalism,' I am not referring to 'National Socialism' (the Nazi Party). Nationalism does not necessarily require nor imply tyranny or harm.

I'll be sure to do so.

>"Is nationalism harmful to a society?"
Nationalism preserves a society and culture.

Globalism destroys it by making every country in the world exactly the same. McDonalds and Hollywood in every country. Nigerians and chinks and Indians everywhere living on the dole or taking jobs from the nation's workers. Ironically globalism and multiculturalism help destroy the very international cultures they talk about appreciating by making every nation the same and losing what makes it unique.

You miss blood in your list you fucking abstract liberal scum

Seconded, brah!

Argue that Nationalism is bad,
but talk about it in the context of Israel.

Talk about how Israel does DNA tests for Russian Jews who want to move there.
Talk about the sterilization of Ethiopian Jews.
Talk about how apartheid has been shown not to work and that we all have to do our part to get Israel to accept refugees.

Multiculturalism is the way forward for Jews and show all the Jewish memes about accepting multiculturism.

(((Einstein)))

Albert Ein(((stein)))

These would be appropriate:

>Nationalism
World society being formed into largely autonomous countries where decisions about the direction of the country are made by the native people of that social entity. The counterpoint to globalism, where direction is not made with a particular country's interests in mind. Instead policy reflects the interests of transnational entities - usually global corporations and financiers.

>society
The bonds that hold people together and the policies and practices that facilitate this. This is reflected by a people's rules of etiquette, taboos, laws, preconceptions, institutions, method of social direction, historical experience, likes and dislikes.

>harmful [to society]
An action, policy or social standard that is counter productive to the stability, longevity and efficient function of that society.

-----

From there it should be fairly straight forward to make the case for nationalism being the only practical solution for running the world.

>Implying 1930s nationalism is the same as 2010s nationalism

>use the argument of:
>"question"

Pick a side first. The best side is, of course, nationalism is beneficial if not entirely necessary to a society.

Didn't Albert Einstein support Israel though?

Except don't even color it by saying "BTW NOT TALKIN BOUT NAZIS XD"

Just say nationalism is the nation first.

>caring about your country
>caring about your neighbors and countrymen
>caring about the future of your children

yeah these people are real dumbasses

Nationalism is based, that flag needs to say globalism

Can't have diversity without nationalism.

Turn the moral point against liberals

...

...

Isn't globalism the end goal of any successful nation state?

>nationalism is a DISEASE

>lives in nation state
>has never lived in anarchy or any other system
>never will
>happy consumer, look at him go, 70 long years, and he still doesnt kno

wouldn't measles be the measles of mankind?

Albert Einstein had a brain which was only good in the mathematics portion of the brain. He was not a philosopher. Fuck you. Appeal to authority is valid, you got to Einstein for physics, his brain was good at that. You don't go to Einstein for marriage advice, he was said to have had a bad marriage. You go to Aristotle for example, for philosophy. he didn't spend his life studying and practicing philosophy or politics. God you are so dumb, can't stand it. People usually can only get good at one subject, that's why we have specialties. You got nothing, which is why you have the notion that people can be generalists and be good at everything at the same time. Your dumb teachers called you a special genius or some shit. You must put time into your specialty.

It really isn't that hard. Talk about the unifying factor it has, point to examples, appeal to the natural human instinct of us vs them.

Question what makes one harmful. Is nationalism harmful to nations on a lesser level than ours? Yes, as they will lose out because we are no longer helping them. But it will be better for us.

That's not how the economy works. Cheaper products will always be bought. That's how competition works.
Ended well the last time

needs to be mono cultural though

>those damn immigrants taking our jobs or living off our welfare

Nationalism is harmful to imperial society.
If the society is composed of many different ethnicities that are aware of themselves, nationalism will rip apart the empire - see Austro-Hungarian empire.
Or America in the inevitable second actual civil war, where Dixies, German Midwesterns, Niggers and Spics will tear America apart (Anglo Yankees will do shit).

I'm not aware of any explicit pro-nationalism book. The best I can give you is read history books and watch nature channel. See and understand when and under what circumstances nations were formed from extended tribal structure.
If you want more edgy arguments, you should read Fascist writings - not that many of them exist.


Look nationalism has no rational backing, because it's a natural expression of coalescing tribes and ethnicities. There can't be better argument for the existence and perpetuation of a particular nation, except they deserve to exist because of themselves.

Why should Germans exist? Why should the French? Why should the Chinese? Why should the Jews exist?
I can give you a good rational argument, why they shouldn't.

If you want to argue the tactics of national perpetuation - should they be fascist or cucks, do please. But the nation exist of itself and it should perpetuate and strengthen itself through nationalism or else it would die and be consumed by others.

t. a literal brainlet

Read Einstein's letters and papers

>American education
Einstein lived through both world wars, both caused by nationalism.

Look up Albert Einstein's brain. He was not a genius in everything, no one is. If you ever specialize in any subject, you will understand the Dunning-Kruger effect. He was a genetic freak in the portion of his brain which is responsible for mathematics. You baby bird brains fucker.

Specialize in a trade, College is for suckers. That's what I am going to do, I can study philosophy on my own.

talk about how multiculturalism creates breeding grounds for crime by making racial enclaves.

>globalism is made with the interests of TNCs in mind
You seriously think this? Is it because transnational and global mean somewhat the same thing?

these

Also don't be a pussy, make a pro-Hitler argument.

Transnational I define as an entity that does not hold allegiance to any particular nation.

Good, means they're not biased.

Hey, how about flooding your country and education system and social services with millions of unvetted third-world migrants

No?

Ok, well how about a quote from Mr. Albert Einstein and a cartoon haha bet you feel pretty dumb now

It means they're self interested, backstabbing kikes who would sell their own mothers to be broken down for parts if they could get away with it.

It's the opposite of harmful to "A" society.

It's like asking if team work is harmful to an NBA team.

Nationalism is nothing more than team work and long term planning to care for your offspring and the offspring of your fellow team members.

When people say nationalism is bad, what they mean is discriminator tribalism is bad. They believe that the ENTIRE human population is to be viewed as one team.

If the entire NBA was the Chicago Bulls, there would be no reason to have games. You can't win or lose.

I guess the downside is - If there is no competition, no game, what's even the point of having a league? Why even train?

Being asked to admonish Nationalism is like being asked to admonish your family - Which may not be that far fetched anymore. Would people blink if a mother turned in her own son for a crime?

There might even be a scientific, biological argument.

When we don't have nations or communities, when EVERYONE and EVERYWHERE is your nation and community, it may actually be physiologically impossible to have genuine empathy and care for several billion people, the vast majority of which you will never, ever know.

It's as simple as understanding race and IQ. It doesn't take a genius to understand why you can't have good globalism.

>Cause by nationalism

Were they though? You seem to forget the role played by Communism, Monarchism, Capitalism and every other -ism that was at play in those 50 years.

Shadilay
The Trips of Truth

Kikes are tribalist as fuck.
They would sell your mum though.

Remember who invented them.

He speaks!

Actually globalism has been responsible for more wealth creation than any other event in history. No, it's not capitalism. The US, UK and practically every country has had capitalism for centuries. The economic booms of the past century Ave been driven by international trade.

That's the thing - A company is violently nationalist and patriotic. To their nation, which is the company.

Tribalism is tribalism. People choose allegiances. Even if a Muslim was born within the walls of the Vatican - He'd still be a Muslim.

Tribalist, yes, but (pre-Israel and still largely outside of it) nationless. They're basically rich gypsies.

That wasn't done in the name of globalism, that was very much Ol' Blighty saying "We're here for your shit". That we tended to run the place better than the natives was merely a side effect.

Wow let's keep it cool now.
WW1 - you mean where German Empire allied with Austro Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire fought Russian Empire, British Empire and French Empire?

Very nationalistic.

WW2 was largely a continuation of the conflict, where German Empire allied with Japanese Empire and Italian Empire fought Soviet Empire (Russian), British Empire, French Empire and American Empire.

Very nationalistic

Like I said, they would sell their own mothers for profit.

That something makes money does not in itself make it a universal "good".

>creation

transference would be a better term.

>economic booms of the past century

Don't forget the busts.

Globalism has brought millions out of poverty.

While disenfranchising and ruining the lives of millions.

You previously said nationalism caused WW2 - Yet Globalism was every bit as responsible as nationalism. Hitler, a multi-national migrant, utilizing multi-national finances and man power to expand multi-national empires.

OP's argument is pointless if discussed form a god's eye view.

Nationalism or Globalism are neither objectively good or bad. It all comes down to what benefits YOU.

Globalism sucks if you come from a Pittsburgh Steel Town.

It's fantastic if you're a skilled toilet cleaner from Poland.

Perhaps not in the NAME of globalism, but it was the front runner for globalist (rather than just international) trade.

And they were in the game solely for themselves, rorting the pubic purse to enrich themselves.

>Jew who lead the threat of world wide nuclear fallout didn't like Nationalism
whoa no way

yes expose your critical thinking at ((((their))))) institutions

u idiot u feed ur sjdoublejew prof w/e propaganda they are teaching u back to them get an A and move on

never reveal urself to the jew

OP here, thread seems to sail smoothly. Some points here are pretty good, definetly going to scan some more info on other sites, but this is actually going pretty well.

On another question, what are the backsides of adopting nationalism into a country? If I can explain why it's good, lll need evidence as to why the pro's outweigh the cons. it would seem as if I had cherry picked should I not include the downsides.

What you call globalism is Americans and western Europeans outsourcing their skilled manufacturing labour to impoverished Asian countries to do 2 things:
1) Reduce their manufacturing costs
2) Crush the unions.

I'd say number 2 is more important.

Fun Fact - Germans never outsourced their manufacturing so they rule Europe now. They are only outsourcing their manufacturing now to their vassal states to keep them in check.

This argument never made sense to me because it's not like only one immigrant is entering and doing this. Some are doing one, some are doing the other, and some indeed do both.

end thyself m'lad

>Perhaps not in the NAME of globalism, but it was the front runner for globalist (rather than just international) trade.

This much is true at least. While it may not have been done with that intention, the institutions that it left behind do make up the backbone of modern globalism, making it possible.

>And they were in the game solely for themselves, rorting the pubic purse to enrich themselves.

Sometimes, however taking the piss like that and angering the natives to the point that they start to fight back will affect business. So most tended to keep the people somewhat content, lest it affect their bottom line.

I would highly disagree with notion, that jews didn't have nation before Israel.

The whole idea or Rabbinical Judaism was that after Romans destroyed their temple and scattered them was to answer the question - can jews exist without their land and coalesce around their tradition.

The answer is - yes.
They codified their tradition in Talmud and preached it to every jew, not to mention the Torah (old testament). They managed to survive almost 2000 years of exile, because they kept their national spirit through their explicitly stated shared values.

If you were a jew and would go from Germany to Spain you could stay at any jew and he would welcome you as an honoured guest. '
Jews were a nation without explicitly controlled borders and they prove that what matters most is not magical dirt but blood and tradition.

Funny thing is my history teacher and my dad both literally said hitler dindu nuffin.

Except fail to kill all the jews.

A company has only some characteristics of nation, because like nation they have to govern themselves effectively with large organization.

But they lack the critical aspect of blood. I would not kill for Oreo's or Microsoft.
But I would for my Balt brothers.

Depends how you are defining "downside".

From an anti-nationalists view, they would argue that it unjustly privileges the citizens of a country over that of others, particularly within the borders of that country, as they view the planet's entire human population as the same.

They would also argue that it leads to war and conflict, as in their heads they think that since everyone on the planet is basically the same, without these artificial constructs dividing them they would no longer have any reason to fight.

Another argument they would make is that it curbs individual freedoms, as they believe that they should be able to do whatever they want, whether it is damaging to their nation's society or not, due to viewing such things as illegitimate. They don't view treason as a crime.