Nationalism is for losers who need to adopt a group identity because they have no virtues or accomplishments as an...

Nationalism is for losers who need to adopt a group identity because they have no virtues or accomplishments as an individual. There are no such thing as a "great people", only great individuals.

then get out of the country and declare independence.

What are civilizations?

> ANCAP flag

Why am I surprised?

A group of people can do greater things than the group members could individually. Most great indivduals relied on the support of many other people as well.

Nationalism exists only because banding together with people of common ancestry has been favoured by evolution.

Each individual represents a sample from the gene pool of a local group, of course a cluster of genes can be judged by the specimens produced.

>nationalism is for losers
it's literally "strength in numbers - the ideology"
go back to where you came from or lurk moar

nothing to be scared of right? good, you can go back to sleep now

OP uses language developed by a culture, a collective, to transmit his message to a mass of people. The ideas he transmits were developed by a community and belongs to a community of ideas. He's able to transmit these ideas because of the civilization that cultures, nations, communities and so on strove to build up. It goes on and on, but individualism is a contradictory mess.

You can't survive by yourself. you owe it to society.

asians lay eggs

>implying you can accomplish anything as an individual
Not even the language and money you use is your individual accomplishment.

you're free to renounce your citizenship and go at any time commie

OP is obvious Kike

When you can pump your own water, grow and hunt your own food, generate your own electricty, dispose of your own sewage etc etc then we can have a discussion about a "society of individuals".

This is re-packaged lolibertarianism, which requires a functioning society to actually practice. We're not a nation of individuals, that's marketing bollocks designed to flog us a different shade of unit each. We could shift social focus away from servicing the Great Pension Ponzi Scheme, true, but degenerating into "me me me" isn't a constructive pathway either is it? We're headed that way anyway, it is the end goal of Globalism: directed consumerismmn for all, with no way out.

not necessarily nationalist.

but they do not have to be tribal about it or nationalists

no - strength in numbers would suggest you should welcome all people who want to join your group, no matter what race or national origin they come from.

>get really rich
>get it all stolen because your country has been over run by people who have no sense of individualism
See you in 30 years when the Latino government decides that you’re too successful and need to share

all are fallaciously conflating nationalism with co-operative living.

> no such thing as a great people

Yes, the Romans and the Hutus are exactly the same in achievements, respect, admiration, etc., you absolute inbred brainlet faggot fuck. kys

Counter nationalism. Think of the catastrophic impact of open borders for example.

Take your bitch ass into the woods and we'll see just how far you get purely by your individual effort. Hell, even language was a collective effort.

Organized collectives >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>disorganized equivalent individuals

That said, there is a hierarchy WITHIN collectives, and the most competent individuals should hypothetically go at the top to lead the rest.

>losers who need to adopt a group identity
>weeb
The jokes write themselves

Can you name a successful case where the people didn't have some kind of national identity?

...

I made no comment on nationalism, m8? The sort of national socialism practiced by Germany very quickly ran out of money and they had to start forging pounds sterling and laundering them through the Bank of International Settlement. Clearly that needs tweaking if it is to be successful.

We had nationalism in the UK for the three hundred or so years we ended up dominating the globe, introducing our language, economics, education and legal system to it. I'd say that was pretty successful given the effects are still up and running strong today in our decline into Third Way nightmarism and potential caliphate today.

How do you propose to organize the huge numbers of people required for a civilization into a collective that is both strongly cohesive and well-coordinated, not just for one generation but indefinitely?

How do you expect to unite a nation based on something arbitrary? Even individuals don't keep their opinions the same throughout their lives. How do you get everyone to agree on the fundamental reason why they have collectivized? Not just everyone in that time period, either. Whatever fundamental reason people have collectivized must be passed onto the next generation unarbitrarily or the collective will no longer have a foundation. What is the fundamental collectivizing principle?

>only great individuals
>OP, an individual, would lose any fight against a group that outnumbered him
whoa man you truly have it all figured it out lol

most science is international. most manufacturing now done is international. most medical advances are international - all the technology we use, the infrastructure of our lives, the food we eat, the clothes we wear the internet we shit post on is all international. and it is not nationalistic.

nationalists in almost every case tend to claim credit for things that are actually international - no nation state has independence from international events.

every major corporation in the world is international.

nationalism was useful, when we did not have a large population and global communications and easy movement - now it is just an affectation for people that are scared by a world too large for them to control.

Nice post, OP! Can you post some more qts?

I'm just afraid of the sub-80IQ shitskins. I'm all for globalism if we only have Europeans and Orientals on the planet.

>We had nationalism in the UK for the three hundred or so years we ended up dominating the globe,

I am not sure that was nationalism - or rather it was English aristocratic imperialism (it was never nationalism in the sense of being the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - the Scots Irish and Welsh were just cannon fodder, as were the english peasants)

to say that nationalism drove it would be wrong. it was aristocratic and the wealthy merchant classes ambition that built the empire.

This

This is what you look like, OP

Sorry to say this but you can't live as a individual on society, there's a great chance that the computer you're using, the clothes you're using, the house you live in, the water you drink, the food you eat and the electricity you use are not produced by you, if anything you produce 1 or 2 of these, if you can do all of these then you can find some island and go be individual there but if you plan to stay atleast try to be useful.
Also there are both great people and great individuals, a good act is a good act regardless of being in group or not.

>ancap
let me explain it too you nationalism is the respecting of both the culture tradition and race of the country.

The only problem with collectivism is that it's typically not voluntary.

I agree that is a hard one to answer - but faling back on geocentric or ethnic differences is simply divisve.

america seemed to have a coherent ideology - the american Dream - the ideal of equality and opportunity. It is still powerful - it just looks hollow at the moment because the world has changed (and is more populous), so that it is less convincing to say that anybody could become rich, or President (even if Trump's success shows that even the most unqualified could have the job)

ethno state nationalism teds to be self harming through the tendency to become solidly racist and thus divisive and missing out on opportunity to co operate and prosper -

geocentric nationalism also tends to do the same thing, without the racism, but by promoting a geocentric exceptionalism "I am better because I was born here, rather than that shit hole over there"

either type of pride is simply unrealistic adn gets int eh way of better relations between groups.


and it encourages conflict.

shared values are a better way to build a better world

>1 posts by this ID
Newfags, lol

I can take care of myself, but can they?

>shared values are a better way to build a better world
Only if you assume everyone shares your values, which they don't. Otherwise you end up with the exact same problem, you're better than whoever doesn't share your values.

>I am better because I was born here, rather than that shit hole over there
This isn't the nature of nationalism. Nationalism is an extension of familial association. To say "I know my family, I prefer my family, I will protect and support my family" doesn't require you to hate or feel superior to anyone outside of your family. I think what you're referring to exists independently, including between people with different values as I hinted above.

I appreciate this coming from someone with an Ireland flag. - as someone born in the North I have often been subject to abuse from random southerners who have heard my accent. as someone not of catholic background I have been told I cannot be irish "and should go back where I came from"

given that my family has lived in the island for 400 years, and that I made no choice to be born where I was, or in having a family religious background - and that my father, grandfather and I have all identified as Irish, all had Irish passports, all support irish independence, and all have been atheists with no church affiliation - I find that sort of "nationalism" and tribalism utterly repulsive.

At the same time I, and my father adn grandfather, have always decried the undemocratic terrorism of certain republican groups which have achieved nothing but violence and poverty, and all of us have been anti marxist and anti fascist(and you know that the Sinn fein are marxists who supported the Nazis as enemies of england)

I see the border as an old fashioned a frankly irrelevant line on the map. The Eu and the Good Friday Agreement made that clear - Brexit of course is just the greatest act of stupidity in decades, and I hope it will not give idiot republicans an utterly stupid excuse to start murdering people again - but it is true - the border does not matter in any significant way.

I have seen what nationalism does - and I think inevitably does, given human nature. It divides, and with division we get exceptionalism, and with national pride comes national competition and jockeying for supremacy, and with that comes discrimination and conflict. Every time.

we see it on small scale like football supporters - either of local teams or national ones - and large sale when the nationalistic urge is exploited by politicians.

it is cancer

>and I think inevitably does, given human nature
I think you need to consider this a bit more in the context of what I wrote. Your issue isn't with nationalism itself.

Division is how you get diversity, and there is beauty and utility in diverse human development.

The point is a rational ethno-nationalism (NOT supremacy) based on love of and reliance on your own people and your collective identity. I think of it as a higher state of existence--like the transition from single-celled organisms to multi-celled ones. You can't just throw a bunch of single cells in a vat. They must act cohesively and coordinate well to be of one body. The result is a collective being that is vastly superior to the individual cell. This is something I want for all races.

As for the American Dream, that is essentially the motivation of money, but I don't believe money brings people together. It just herds them in the same direction. If anything, money incentivizes people to find ways to exploit each other. It is a fundamentally weak collectivizing principle, and now we are seeing it buckle under pressure. It only worked as long as it did because of the genetic closeness of the original creators and the small size of the minorities forcing them to integrate. Now they are large enough that they can start acting more like a group, so that's what they are doing.

but i believe that given the nature of human beings - of any value system - to want to feel better than others (that is just how we are - we like to feel superior to someone) then nationalism will inevitably become one of those vectors for pride and conflict that results from it.

without wanting to derail the discussion - it is like gun ownership - someone suicidal who has a gun can easily kill themselves and attempts are more often fatal because the gun is a good way to do it. In non gun owning households suicide attempts are less frequent, and less frequently fatal. We could debate whether that is a good or bad thing, and the other value of gun ownership - but it does give the lie to the idea that guns are neutral objects in the debate about suicide prevention. it isn;t entirely true that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' - having guns produces more deaths, even though it is people that pull the trigger. similarly, nationalism produces more conflict - it could be neutral, but in practice it is clearly not inclined to encourage neutrality.

Most people I know who identify as Irish nationalists are racist, and prejudiced. That is just how it is.

Agreed Rabbi. Israel needs to learn to become more multi-cultural and share the land with the sandniggers.

but why do it on a racist basis?
if you had a team of smart people of all colours working together would you suggest that was a bad thing?

Most people I know of any ideology, even willful apathy, consider themselves superior to outsiders of the ideology and will readily divide themselves from their others on that. Is that not what you experience in general?

Smart people willingly working together is beaultiful, key word is willingly, more than anything we hate globalism because you don't get to say if you want it or not, and to control people who don't want it they make up ridiculous laws, it's this kind of fake diversity that most people here hate.
The racist basis is more of a cultural basis, it's not that we hate blacks and jews because they are blacks and jews, but because of what they as a group do, this applies more to the blacks than to the jews with a lot of our hate for them being meme, we even have some shitposters from Israel.

yes - but an ideology that emphasises unity and equality adn minimises difference tends to lessen that effect. Ideologies that emphaise the creation of divisions - geographical or on inherited characteristics over which individuals have no control and which may tend to stereotype - are more inclined to greater division and deeper conflict?

I am sure you are aware that the conflict in the north is often described as being religious - but it isn't. It has not been a conflict about religion for centuries - it is about nationalism.

however In the north it has been shown in many studies that that the Catholic community is far more biased against the protestants, and has far deeper ingrained biases and false historical ideas than protestants towards the catholics. It is taught in school and in the community generally, and played on by the republican propaganda machine.

The protestant (or rather non catholic schools - state schools which often have a small catholic minority of pupils and integrated schools that have a a real mix of community backgrounds) tend to teach a more inclusive and less tribal world view. I think it is because most protestants are not really all that religious, are tolerant of the fact that there are multiple protestant churches, and see catholicism as just another christian sect (the hardline headbanger prods of the DUP are of course an exception to this)

catholicism tends to teach that it is the one and only proper christian church and all others are wrong - and when that is combined with nationalism and atrocity history and the chip on the shoulder victimhood that goes with it - it is a toxic combination.

Because a research team is a small group (more easily managed) that works together temporarily for the fundamental reason of money (or some shorter-term goal). That is a project, not a civilization.

They don't care about each other and as soon as the money dries up or their interests or circumstances change, they separate. This is inevitable when the reason for collectivizing is something so arbitrary. Not to mention that when you are working with the huge numbers required for a civilization, it is going to be vastly harder to get people even to agree on something arbitrary.

Your genes, though, are actually impossible to reject, they create a link between you and the rest of your race objectively, and they are necessarily passed to the next generation. That is stability. On top of this you can build the changeable things that bind people together like culture, maybe religion, politics, etc, but these will and should change with time, while the collective is kept intact on the objective foundation of ethnicity.

There is also the very unappreciated psychological aspect of having a greater identity to be a part of and contribute to instead of simply living for short-term hedonism. Like an extension of family.

Lastly, I am not saying that nations must be 100% homogeneous. As long as the native race has hegemony, they can safely support small numbers of immigrants to live in their society. Again, something like 2% of your own biomass is non-human bacteria, and, at that low percentage, they CAN actually contribute to your body, but too many and they might kill you.

No man is an island op

Or I just like my nation and culture and don't want to see it erased and replaced by a shitty and backwards third world one.

Reminds me of something. Also most "great achievements" are actually team efforts, so kys.

>we hate globalism because you don't get to say if you want it or not,

but you should equally hate nationalism because you don't get to choose it

very few countries have 100% of people voting for one side of any question, and even if they did they then are making the globalists not get globalism, against their will -

if 99% of the world votes for globalism and 1% country says unanimously "no" then globalism is itself impossible.

and in any case, that is the reality of trade. You could have a closed borders system if you want to have a poor nation that does not avail of modern technology and science and medicine and all the goods of global free trade. But would you really want that?

Nationalism is abstract, but individualism is imaginary.
When the war starts, you'll just be another soldier fighting for your country.
You have individualism now because you're just floating, unprepared what is more often than not the natural state of living--conflict with another group of people. When the time comes others will be prepared, and you will be individually dead.

Actually you do, kinda, you can just leave if you're not pleased in a nationalist country, but globalism trasnforms every country into a multicultural mess.
And that's why they don't give you a choice, because it would fail. They can unite all they want, but not force everyone to do it.
I'm not saying you should be isolated from the rest of the world, but not actively replacing the population by importing hordes of people and trying to help your own and your friends before others seems like a good plan.

an-cuck detected