Hey Sup Forums

Hey Sup Forums,

Whats the end goal or ideal of nationalism?

For Globalism it seems pretty straight forward, eventually the world becomes homogeneous, diversity across the globe ie everywhere there are a mix of all races/nationalities and mixed races. Whilst forming, the world government takes the best policies from every nation and hones them down through trial and error until a system is made that represents the individuals that make it up and more importantly that benefits the species as a whole.

I don't agree with that and to be honest it sounds pretty horrible. Also it'll never happen but it is a clear utopian goal. Whereas for nationalism I'm confused. There are no countries that have existed for a significant amount of time, certainly none that are recognizable to their founders. Every country has a minority group inside it so is at least multi cultural to some extent. Is the goal to stay mostly the same until we explore the galaxy and colonise it for different nations? I can see only conflict and war with nationalism even if we never leave this rock. Although for globalism there will always be dissenters and rebellions I suppose.

>Whats the end goal or ideal of nationalism?

to wipe the eternal anglo from the genetic slate

to get laid and make a lot of money

Sovereignty and the right self determination. Nations and peoples can come to their own ends, goals, conclusions and moral systems.

simply just think about your neighborhood, how it won't have any identity, any original structure, any meaning, your life will be generic. If it is already generic, well global urbanism have taken it all since 1930`s.

Globalism seems like the end goal of humanity but is really utopian think that you could end conflict between a specie that have fight every time in history, therefore a global government will end in more fights of power.

Nationalism seeks for the preservation of the cultures of earth pretty much.

theres an acceptable amount of conflict though. With globalism laws and systems arise that curb violence, it would be similar to when a nation is created from tribes but on a larger scale. To use England as an example, when it was formed it merged 3-4 competing areas that were racially roughly the same.

>Nationalism seeks for the preservation of the cultures of earth pretty much.

but for what, until they are superceded by newer cultures?

There is no end goal.

It's Marxists who believe history is moving toward a destination.

Nationalism just provides an organizing structure and sense of community for the various peoples on the earth.

In eternal war the strongest will win dominion of earth, humans will evolve to whoever wins. Conquering ones spread into solar system mining some planets and populating others. Build a Dyson sphere Around the sun to harvest it's energy to power our planets. Figure out how to harvest energy from cosmic background radiation and out galactic core black hole and build days on spheres around every star in our galaxy by automation self replicating machine. Mine every planet in our solar system and relocate material to atomic restructuring machine capable of turning raw elements into artificial elements stronger than anything our universe has ever produced. Create shell for black hole harvester that can pass through event horizon through quantum teleportation and once inside explode a black hole like popcorn through a chain reaction for harvesters waiting outside. Invent faster than light travel. Harvest every galaxy, black hole, star and planet in our universe to make artificial elements so dense they can cut through event horizon of our black hole universe to heaven above. Watch as our universe behind us dissipates the very moment we exit it into outerverse heaven. Be the seed of life in new universe unimaginable grand in comparison to our current one. Globalism we all become mix of shit no more evolution, sun explodes and we all die here.

End goal of nationalism = a place for everyone to belong.
Healthy communities where the citizens are not alienated. Different cultures for different countries. A country has jobs for its people.
End goal of globalism = different regions of the world specialize in certain industries. Populations have to be mixed and eventually you are expected to ship off to whatever part of the world has the jobs that you specialize in. One monolithic culture decided by elites who are disconnected. No realistic method to create community.

I probably got sloppy with this. There's more that I'm not missing but here's what comes out of my mind atm.

National dominance on the globe.

that seems to go against human nature which is to invent and explore, You can't unring the bell of technological progress, we are moving towards something. I do like that idea that its purpose is a placebo so we dont go nuts.

so...aggressive expansionism until we break through our universe and become immortal beings?

living in harmony with all the different peoples of the world separate but friends

unlike globalism which destroys the planet as soon as the first problem comes along because the jews forgot not to put all your eggs in one basket

The path of evolution has been this:

Stage 1: prokaryotic cells

Stage 1b: prokaryotic cells in mutual symbiotic relationships

Stage 2: eukaryotic cells composed of organelles that used to be fully functioning independent prokaryotic cells

Stage 2b: Eukaryotes in mutual symbiotic relationships

Stage 3: Multi-cellular organisms

Stage 3b: (YOU ARE HERE) Social organisms

Stage 4: A national entity whose moral worth surpasses that of the individual. False starts tried with fascism and communism. Has to be national not global bc the organisms inside must be genetically similar in order for this to be a winning evolutionary strategy. Ants have this, so do bees. It is inevitable for humans

Global powers are worry some, but nationalism is cancer because it sets up a competition and allows for humanity to dwell in a state of constant conflict.

Nationalists think the perpetual competition allows the best ones to emerge.

But what are we talking about? Best nations? Best individuals?

Assessment of groups' and individuals' qualities can be carried on even if there is no State to look at.

Let's be honest and let's wipe away all these privileges. Nations are things of the past... No point in continuing projects that just lead to further struggles.

To the contrary, States are a bit different. They are collective unities that somewhat stand between trusts, corporations, and the people... But they needn't be nations.

Globalism is just mono-nationalism on a planetary scale.

>Stage 4: A national entity whose moral worth surpasses that of the individual. False starts tried with fascism and communism. Has to be national not global bc the organisms inside must be genetically similar in order for this to be a winning evolutionary strategy. Ants have this, so do bees. It is inevitable for humans
What's the next step user?

It leaves competition in place but dispenses with international wars that have little to do with the rise of the best individuals.

The right for all peoples to have a homeland

Europe was at its most peaceful when different ethnic groups had their own sovereign territory. And they're destroying that with multiculti and a creeping EU.

Iraq wouldn't be at war if it was partitioned between the three major groups (Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds). The British and French fucked this up and drew arbitrary borders, and after foreign meddling the region is in chaos along ethnic and sectarian lines. Same case with Afghanistan and every "diverse" country.

Nationalism is true diversity, because it preserves diverse cultures and identities rather than mashing them together

I think to hear the definition from an ethno-nationalist is pretty straight forward. It's when you consider it from a civic angle it gets more confusing.

It basically comes down to the fact that there are a select few, in fact less than 15, relevant countries in the 21st century. The more republican, or parliamentary-style interpretations of nationalism in these countries is that they ought to preserve their distinct cultures and institutions, shielded from the homogenizing forces of trade and speculative, central bank capitalism. It is economic centrism without the progressivist baggage of democratic socialism.

but historically ethnic groups never keep to their sovereign territory. Whats the point in having diverse cultures, There are cultures that are more advanced than others or more open to evolve. One will eventually dominate, is that the goal?

This is making the most sense to me so far. Self contained chunks of humanity working towards something, vague but probably similar to globalist goals. Large enough chunks to be useful but not too large where control is lost to elites/government

I guess is the same but around race. The logical stage 5 is globalism btw,

The end game is culture, language, and borders

Buy Michael Savage's book Trump's War

>elites/government
None of that. Sovereign nations.
Elites create their own culture and will inevitably that kind of system will turn into outright globalism.

Nationalism allows nations to compete, the weak fall and the strong rise. The objectively better will be on top.
Globalism is the destruction of the strong and the weak into an average.

>None of that
Meant to refer to global elites.
You probably understand but some faggot will bitch.

Basically Canada, The united states, and mexico need to merge at some point.

Russia needs to take europe, and split china with the poos

South america needs a central country to industriize it and set up infrastructure and schooling. Same with africa.

The middle east needs to be glassed or used as a waste dump after we take their oil by force

All in all we need to stop pussyfooting around our conflicts and get shit done like men again.

Nationalism is a decently stable and beneficial way for groups of people to organize in favor of their own interests. People are inherently selfish or self-interested, which is why it can be better to balance power rather than concentrate it. If we all tried to get along under the same government, (((one group of elites))) would dominate, and organizing to oppose them would be difficult. Geography, race, culture, ethnicity, religion, etc. all divide people. I think it's fine to move in a One World Government direction, but only slowly. Let modern technology and ideas spread across the world first, so that we aren't trying to put cats and dogs in the same room.

Decentralization of power is obviously better. How retarded to you have to be to think otherwise?

ah ok, so its a stop gap. A reflexive short term response to the inevitable. There is no goal, because there can't be a goal without dismantling civilization as we know it

FUCK DRUMP

ps- i am NOT shareblue

Okay, so lets say we go full globalism, you do realise that will mean living in a completely conservative oligarchy where the rich and the media control everything? Sure, you can move to another country, but you also have to deal with everyone being able to move everywhere. This will mean that everywhere is just like everywhere else, just with more ghettos, and more racial tensions.

Sounds like a fucking nightmare.

You won't be able to move to another country because there will be no concept of healthy competition. It would be more like feudalism or communism where you need permission (in other words, you need to bribe somebody) to take a dump.

that is essentially my opinion on globalism. I've got more in common with Mohammed in Tel Aviv who can 360 no scope than with Nigel down the street who owns a bulldog and can burp the alphabet after a pint of Stella

No Jewish banking cartels , freedom of speech and not living in the third world.

this

Just because it'd be nationalist and separated, does not mean that there would be no trading, working, or even visiting these other nations. It's simply a way to give people a place to live exclusively among people who share, and grew up being raised, with the same values, morals, ethics, and way of life. A safe place for your people to be them.

Forcing people to live and to have to live amongst people who literally want them and their way of life to be wiped off of the planet does nothing but build tension and create conflict. Mainly however, it creates problems that distract us from other things that we could be putting our time towards.

Some of us, believe it or not, simply want a place where we don't have to worry about people who don't share what we hold dear moving in and demanding that our way of life be completely overhauled to make them more comfortable. And if I don't meet their will, I'm an asshole and will be harassed and ostracized to a new land once they eventually take over what was once my home. Then it will repeat itself, as it always does.

We can't become "one" it isn't human nature. Other people will be upset that others are bigger, or others are smaller, or others have this, or that. However, if you allow people with a common background, heritage, and culture to live amongst themselves they can be given the chance to unite behind that and make whatever life for themselves that they want. Whether it's sitting in the jungle pickin' fruit and getting drunk all day. Or whether it's in the mountains storing food and appreciating academia more. Who cares.

Another reason is that a global regime puts the power in the hands of a global elite, who will be very very hard to get ahold of should anything go awry or if they get a little too hard with us servants. Whereas in a nationalist nation, well that motherfucker lives a days drive, and is Michael's cousin. Get what I'm sayin'?

International wars are stupid and are not essential to a nationalist structure. Who cares what the rest of the world does, I'm worried about my nation. We don't have to have wars to give rise to better individuals, we have sport, science, arts, and philosophy for that. We know we're better than you, no need to send our bravest to their death for a pissing contest when we can have them exploring our oceans or space.

In your view of nationalism it would lead to a global power eventually as the strongest took over. This is ridiculous, please educate yourself more on nationalist ideals before spouting your ignorance.

>for example look at China as microcosm of globalization..it used to be a feudal society ruled by monarchism and now it is a homogeneous slave society with no land rights no freedom of speech and with barely any human rights at all ruled by a tyrannical central government...globalization is the epitome of evil.

you cannot have diversity if you mixed everything into one giant pot

>Sure, you can move to another country,
Good luck with that, you'll need special permission to move even to another city in your own country, just like in USSR. The only way you'll be able to is if you're needed by the corporation(s).

>Whats the end goal or ideal of nationalism?

Surviving the assaults and territorial expansion attempts by other nations who may not have our citizens best interests at heart.

Obviously.

>For Globalism it seems pretty straight forward

Yeah... Oceana has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia, "Friend Citizen!"(TM)

>the world becomes homogeneous, diversity across the globe
>homogeneous diversity
oxymoron
leads me to believe you really arnt as sure what globalism means as you think.

I dont think globalism and nationalism must be mutually exclusive, although the globalist movement as it exists and nationalism definitely are.