Are you really denying that the Armenians were part of the violent de-Turk, and that they were also sabotaging many things for Turkey? It's no grounds for genocide, but the genocide did have a motivation.

There were armenian groups doing things like fighting for russia, but the vast majority of armenians were just kind of chilling in the empire. Trying to justify genocide of christians in the ottman empire based on the actions of these armenians fighting for the russians is sort of like trying to justify a genocide of American muslims based on the actions of IS or Al-Queda.

There is no real motivation, and if the US did that, it would be rightfully condemned by literally everyone. But I guess the armenian genocide is less relevant since it was commited against christians.

You seem to be just saying patriotism is good since empires are bad. What sense is this?

My point is that Imperialism is an intrinsic opposite of nationalism, and that the world is much better off with nationalism than it was in previous centuries when Imperialism was the dominant political ideology.

North Vietnam was nationalistic, they wanted the South and to unify Vietnam. Same for the Sandanistas/Contras and North Korea.

I said as much, my point was that the casualties would have been much lighter without foreign involvement.

The war on terror is fueled by nationalism. Go fight in Afghanistan for your country! Go bomb Yemen for your country! That type of thing.

Defending the world of evil does not necessarily entail nationalism. The war on terror was caused by a terrorist attack, not by nationalism.

WW2 was over several things. First, the Japanese wanted to expand the Japanese Empire for the Japanese people at the expense of other ethnic groups. That is inherently nationalistic. Germany wanted to expand Germany at the expense of other ethnic groups for the benefit of the German people.

This is nationalism, but we're getting a little bit mixed up here, so let's backtrack a bit.

There are a whole bunch of types of nationalism, but a few are relevant here:

1. Expansionist Nationalism; What I would call imperialism, what you are calling nationalism. But it's basically the idea that an ethnic group should take over more territory and either kill off it's citizens and replace it with theirs, or impose their culture on the conquered group. This is normally justified by saying that the conquerers people/culture is superior

2. Civic Nationalism - The idea that a government has to be elected by a nation to be the legitimate government of that nation.

3. Banal Nationalism - Everyday representations of the nation which build a shared sense of national belonging amongst humans. What I would call Patriotism

There is a bit of confusion here as you are calling Expansionist Nationalism "Nationalism", and I am calling it "Imperialism". We really are in agreement, it's just that we can't agree on what to call this evil idea that we both oppose.

To be clear, I am not in favor of expansionist nationalism since as I've said, I view it as interchangeable with Imperialism. I am in favor of Civic and Banal nationalism, because I believe that they result in a much better world than Imperialism did.

- French revolution
- Communist revolution in the USSR (and others)
- Any war against a despot and oligarchs ruling the "will of god"

1) Causes of the French Revolution -

A) International: struggle for hegemony and Empire outstrips the fiscal resources of the state
B) Political conflict: conflict between the Monarchy and the nobility over the “reform” of the tax system led to paralysis and bankruptcy.
C) The Enlightenment: impulse for reform intensifies political conflicts; reinforces traditional aristocratic constitutionalism, one variant of which was laid out in Montequieu’s Spirit of the Laws; introduces new notions of good government, the most radical being popular sovereignty, as in Rousseau’s Social Contract [1762]; the attack on the regime and privileged class by the Literary Underground of “Grub Street;” the broadening influence of public opinion.
D) Social antagonisms between two rising groups: the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie
E) Ineffective ruler: Louis XVI
F) Economic hardship, especially the agrarian crisis of 1788-89 generates popular discontent and disorders caused by food shortages.

Class divisions accounted for 2/6 causes.

I should have more precisely said that few or no wars were fought over class divisions alone.

- No more wars between countries over stupid reasons

Seems reasonable, but most wars aren't between actual countries.

- International cooperation to solve crisis

Wouldn't be international, but anyway, yes.

- An unified justice system

Is this really a good thing? Which system would we use? Shariah, like Iran? Or US? Too much conflict; also, different nations need different laws - Switzerland and Saudi Arabia have different situations, why would the same laws work for both?

- No way to do do tax evasion or to delocalise industries as the same rules will apply to everyone

Moving to places with lower tax rates helps people get jobs.

- Limitation of populational migration in the longterm as standarts of living will increase in the hole world

No, everyone takes advantage of universal non-borders to swamp the rich nations. See the EU.

- No need to spend ridiculous ammounts of money in the military

We would spend less, but guerrillas and terrorists (the main enemies of governments) wouldn't just join this union.

- Less government. Yes, less government in the world, because of the fusion of administrations and elected offices, we'll spend less on the leviathan.

Hardly. If nations became like American states, they would still need bureaucracy. That's like saying making the federal government reduced government in America.

- World sharing of technologies

Good for government techs, but most innovation is private-sector, so it wouldn't do that much

- No more taxes in export/import. Even tax barriers to prevent slave labour to enter your country will no longer be needed, as wages and productivity will tend to the same level worldwide

Where would government revenue come from? It would just cause more taxes elsewhere

And that's only a few of the good things that would happen with a world government. The opposite is to stay in your ideas of state-nation and keep the world just the way it is, it's been working fine since 1991 and the end of those damn communists!

Or we could go back to the decentralized past, sans the federal leviathan.

Why not? Emperors would still want wealth, power, land, and new populations to control. The overlap between Empires and nationalism is there no doubt, but even a removal of patriotism wouldn't prevent an empire.

It would greatly hinder empire-building it if an emperor did not have the support of his folk. An emperor can't hold an empire without the support of his patriotic folk.

Even a globalist word government can be considered an empire in of itself since it controls over lands of different cultures, climates, religions, etc. In all likelihood a world government wouldn't even be accepted by democratic majority, so it would have to be implemented by force.

Stop converting the subject, this is about patriotism. Anyhow, yes, world government probably would not be accepted with the world at the propoganda-patriotic being it is now - just look at the EU, for example. But attitudes can change.

Communist revolution in the USSR (and others)

This was not a war of classes, this was just started over food riots in Petrograd. Folk wanted change, that is why the Russian republic was installed, not immediately some Bolshevik thing. And in the October revolution - the Russian Republic failed much harder than the Russian Empire, didn't even get out of the war, but again, was not a war of classes.

There were armenian groups doing things like fighting for russia, but the vast majority of armenians were just kind of chilling in the empire. Trying to justify genocide of christians in the ottman empire based on the actions of these armenians fighting for the russians is sort of like trying to justify a genocide of American muslims based on the actions of IS or Al-Queda.

There is no real motivation, and if the US did that, it would be rightfully condemned by literally everyone. But I guess the armenian genocide is less relevant since it was commited against christians.

I'm not justifying it, but if no Armenians did not fight against Turkey, there would be no Armenian genocide.

My point is that Imperialism is an intrinsic opposite of nationalism, and that the world is much better off with nationalism than it was in previous centuries when Imperialism was the dominant political ideology.

What? No it isn't. Imperialism is bettered by nationalism, that's it. Nationalism doesn't cancel imperialism, it does the opposite.

I said as much, my point was that the casualties would have been much lighter without foreign involvement.

Why have any casualities at all?

Defending the world of evil does not necessarily entail nationalism. The war on terror was caused by a terrorist attack, not by nationalism.

Again, something I mention. September 11 attacks certainly could have been false flag attacks. America's been known for some other false flag attacks, such as Tonkin bay. You really think that America is "defending the world of evil"? America is the evil.

There are a whole bunch of types of nationalism, but a few are relevant here:

All are relevent, I criticise all nationalism.

To be clear, I am not in favor of expansionist nationalism since as I've said, I view it as interchangeable with Imperialism. I am in favor of Civic and Banal nationalism, because I believe that they result in a much better world than Imperialism did.

Why take the lesser of 2 evils, when you can just throw both away?

Is this really a good thing? Which system would we use? Shariah, like Iran? Or US? Too much conflict; also, different nations need different laws - Switzerland and Saudi Arabia have different situations, why would the same laws work for both?

Nothing would be forced upon anybody - justice system would be agreed on by a majority. And every country would become in the same situation, under total globalisation.

Moving to places with lower tax rates helps people get jobs.

Tough, they have to compete in the same arena as everyone else. That's capitalism, if you are against this, you're against capitalism.

No, everyone takes advantage of universal non-borders to swamp the rich nations. See the EU.

The problem with the EU isn't migration within the schengen site. And yeah, standards of living are bettering the EU, as everyone has one currency, it stabilises. Think about it like this: you can throw a small rock high and it can drop really low. But a boulder, it is stable. It won't fluctuate.

We would spend less, but guerrillas and terrorists (the main enemies of governments) wouldn't just join this union.

We would convince them, too, in the utopia.

Hardly. If nations became like American states, they would still need bureaucracy. That's like saying making the federal government reduced government in America.

Why do that, just make them become like oblasts of Belarus - unimportant to the central government.

Where would government revenue come from? It would just cause more taxes elsewhere

Government wouldn't need more money. And the point of that is, world trade is much more easier, the arena gets bigger, more competition, instead of some dumb anticapitalist "protectionism".

Is this really a good thing? Which system would we use? Shariah, like Iran? Or US? Too much conflict; also, different nations need different laws - Switzerland and Saudi Arabia have different situations, why would the same laws work for both?

In a federal system each state would be able to have laws of it's own, just like the US. Only laws regarding human rights should be mandatory. But I was pretty much thinking about an unified police/investigation processus. Criminals wouldn't be able to seek refuge in other countries.

Moving to places with lower tax rates helps people get jobs.

Hmmm, can't argue about that. But I can't see how this contradicts what I said.

No, everyone takes advantage of universal non-borders to swamp the rich nations. See the EU.

The tendence in the EU is still to have reduced migration within the block, as life standarts raise in the east. Plus Poland/Romania/Baltic states are countries going through the process of developpement, which is good for a stagnant west EU economy.

We would spend less, but guerrillas and terrorists (the main enemies of governments) wouldn't just join this union.

These guerillas/terrorists are often a consequence of international interventions in a country. Btw, I didn't said we shouldn't have a military, just that we wouldn't need to put trillions of dollars on it. No need to have that ammount of spending to fight terrorists. Going the hardway it's ineficient and has proven to just fuel more those groups.

Hardly. If nations became like American states, they would still need bureaucracy. That's like saying making the federal government reduced government in America.

I guess you're right here, but bureaucracy is probably a solvable problem. Specially if the federal government pushes towards reform in the public sector in every state and region.

Good for government techs, but most innovation is private-sector, so it wouldn't do that much

Governments can prevent the private sector from sharing it's technologies to other countries throw sanctions and embargos. How would the US gvt feel about it's military contractors sharing their technologies with Russia or China?

Where would government revenue come from? It would just cause more taxes elsewhere

Cutting military spending would probably cover the taxes on export/import. Plus most countries are leaning toward liberalization of trade with trade agreements, so it wouldn't make a huge difference.

Or we could go back to the decentralized past, sans the federal leviathan.

I still think a world government is the best solution for the world, and as decentralized as possible, to let people govern themselves.

It's a miracle that still nobody has quoted me even though I posted on this thread 3 times...

Sorry Belgian, let me do it right now!

Wow. You're too rude here. They weren't dickheads at all. They were "economical exploiters" . Mind the political correctness.

Now please don't offend my lovely country Belgium again, thank you.

Sincerely,

from a nationalist.

I didn't mean to offend modern belgians, who seem to be pretty nice people. Calling belgians who killed 30 million people "Pricks", "Dickheads", [insert another deragatory term here] isn't meant as an insult to modern belgians, but specifically those murderous belgians from a few hundred years ago.

Edited 3/14/2016 18:21:07

How funny I am when I actually act on the internet as a nationalist but meanwhile in real-life I have an anti-nationalist mindset. I feel like it is really fun to mock with my own country. Well.. Belgium didn't had a good reputation to begin with...

The only thing belgium contributed to the world was french fries, which isn't even recognize as belge. #PoorBelgium #SoSad #PoorBelgiumButOnlyTheSouthCauseTheNorthIsFilledWithNationalistPricks

<That's ye joke, don't quote me seriously on that>

Edited 3/14/2016 18:27:30

Idk why Belgium is even a thing. My family is from there, so I like it, but the bottom half should just join France, and the northern half the Netherlands.

France wouldn't agree to it. They'd lose their prime joke country.

Why take the lesser of 2 evils, when you can just throw both away?

I agree with your article but you can't throw Nationalism away. It is ingrained in all to a certain degree

Criminals wouldn't be able to seek refuge in other countries.

This isn't always good a criminal can be anyone the state dosen't agree with / goes against then. (Edward Snowden).

Yea I guess. But smart criminals will always be able to "disapear", the world is huge, and snowden is smart. But for common criminals who used to run to mexico for impunity, wouldn't be able to do so in a world gvt.

Guys I love you! Now everyone has been quoted in this thread, the picture is complete.

I didn't mean to offend modern belgians, who seem to be pretty nice people. Calling belgians who killed 30 million people "Pricks", "Dickheads", [insert another deragatory term here] isn't meant as an insult to modern belgians, but specifically those murderous belgians from a few hundred years ago.

Mind you if I told you I used the past tense in my sentences and not the present tense. I was completely referring to the past though, not with the modern,nice Belgian people today.

#PoorBelgium #SoSad #PoorBelgiumButOnlyTheSouthCauseTheNorthIsFilledWithNationalistPricks

You better #PrayForBelgium

<That's ye joke, don't quote me seriously on that>

<insert ironic comment here>

Idk why Belgium is even a thing. My family is from there, so I like it, but the bottom half should just join France, and the northern half the Netherlands.

The problem here in Belgium is that it is a too hell of politics to split up. Mind the bureaucracy and the high financial costs for both regions if the country would split. Also I see that you have Belgian ancestry. That makes you pretty damn cool. Can I ask you from which part of the country your family is from?

Come oooon SCOOOOOOOOOOTLAAAAAAAAND!

Come oooon SCOOOOOOOOOOTLAAAAAAAAND!

And here you have a prime example of an overenthusiastic Scottish nationalist in its natural habitat.

Come oooon SCOOOOOOOOOOTLAAAAAAAAND!

I would make a joke about scotland not deserving to be a country. But then I remember the rulling party in the UK are the tories, and I just feel sorry for you.

And here you have a prime example of an overenthusiastic Scottish nationalist in its natural habitat.

Do you have any evidence that he's in a pub?

"Normal" Scots live in houses, not in pubs. Which planet are you from?

Edited 3/14/2016 19:35:16

I agree with your article but you can't throw Nationalism away. It is ingrained in all to a certain degree

It's pretty impossible societally, but the world is made better even when a few throw it away.

Enough drops in a puddle will make a sea. - Old Tuvan proverb.

But is Ox a normal Scot?