Show me some historical examples wherein paranoid nationalism actually benefits a sovereign state?
I don’t care about Trump and I’m not sure what you mean by ‘paranoid’, but Hitler raised Germany from ashes into the most powerful country in Europe in a very short time.
Yes, they still lost the war since it was pretty much Germany vs the world (and overextending and waging war on too many fronts is precisely why they lost, but that’s irrelevant for nationalism), check statistics - how fast they economically grew, how few soldiers they lost compared to the allies, etc.
In fact, most of the conquests being done during history are due to nationalistic sentiments, not necessarily radical ones. The countries which began losing their group identity became weak and were soon (well, not exactly soon, in a matter of decades/centuries) conquered, Rome is the prime example of that.
Now, can you tell me of a country which has implemented liberal policies throughout history and survived for centuries? Liberal policies meaning, women voting, sexual promiscuity allowed, multiculturalism, immigration, etc. etc.
How’s that opposite internationalism working really by comparison?
[Please note: I am not a Trump supporter or any kind of government supporter for that matter.]
What does sovereign state mean if there is no ‘nationalism’?
No border, no country.
I read - When has it ever benefited a state to be a sovereign state?
Please, people, me not care about state, I just don’t like the state because the state is responsible for me not feeling satisfied, deadbeat daddy-state!
Me gonna be big boy when state is gone. Me gonna be freee.
Hitler’s Germany is a perfect example of what i mean by paranoid nationalism. You talk about the fact that they lost the war like it was a historical footnote and the real story is how well the country did for a few years before losing the war, which i find a little . . . unusual. Are you saying that, all things considered, Germany is better off for having followed the paranoid nationalism of Hitler?
Rome lasted for thousands of years as one of the most diverse and multi-cultural states the world has ever known. It’s inclusiveness and it’s policies regarding foreigners, non-citizens and conquered peoples were key to it’s rise to power and dominance.
Is internationalism really the opposite of paranoid nationalism?
Holy fuck. This level of stupidity. I just don’t have the mental fortitude to deal with it anymore. Yes, Rome was a multicultural utopia which was all-inclusive and permissive and open-minded and tolerant and they waved rainbow flags around. They were not conquerors who slaughtered all who opposed them and imposed their own rule over the conquered peoples.
Rome was a multicultural utopia paradise and the reason they lost against the barbarians is that they stopped being inclusive and liberal so they were justly replaced with far more inclusive and liberal Germanic tribes who went on to liberally pillage and tolerantly rape and inclusively destroy everything in its path.
Ummm… yes, that’s what happened.
Sheeesh, some of you people are just hopelessly brain-dead.
For all the people like you that need a shepherd.
Yes, how’s that internationalism working out for you by comparison? I’ll ask you again.
UPF, maybe you should let Outsider borrow your signature for a while.
I’ll clue you in clueless clown.
Or let’s say I will tell it how I see it as I don’t think you actually can be clued in when you emotionally resent something.
When anger and hate towards something become ends and purposes in themselves, like with your anarchism, then you will always remain emotionally attached to your despised shepherd. And you love that arrangement.
So long, crooked clown.
Agreed.
Is this the best retort you can manage? It’s a bit lacking, stale, and pathetic.
And here I was expecting something fancy or impressive…
Crooked clown? 
I fancy that as a form of endearment. I think I’ll keep it. Has a nice ring to it.
2 people are driving through the jungle in a car. They stop to rest and enjoy the view, when they notice this animal in the vicinity:
Person A says it’s a tiger, it’s a carnivore, dangerous to humans, and that it’s best to get back in the car.
Person B says it’s a cute, harmless, kitten, that it’s a vegetarian and that it likes to cuddle.
Person A proclaims person B hopelessly brain-dead and gets in the car.
Person B waits for the tiger to approach him with open hands, ready for hugging and cuddling.
Person B continues: See, it’s just a cute, harmless, vege… FUUUUUUUUCCCKKKK person B exclaims! The tiger tore his arm off. AAARRGGHHH MOTHERFUCKER, he continues in pain. As the tiger is feasting on his arm, person A says: You just got proven wrong, buddy. Person B: NO I DID NOT, SEE HOW IT IS NICE AND TAME AND OH GOD NO, he screams again, as the tiger breaks his spine and tears his head off, then proceeds to eat it.
Does person A need to claim to be brilliant in order to recognize that B is a hopeless, brain-dead moron? Does person A claim to be right just because he is right, or does he claim to be right because that’s how reality is, despite of B’s incredible ability to lie about and deny reality, even when it’s hitting him in the face? Does person B’s words alter reality? Do they have a magical power, or not? What does person A need to do, precisely, in order to prove to B that a tiger is a dangerous carnivore, if B is so fucking stupid and delusional and insincere that he claims it’s not as it is eating him.
When it comes to reality-denial, there is really not much one can do to rationally convince the other, because by denying reality the other has already renounced rationality. The only way it may be possible to convince such a person of reality again, is by understanding what is the primary cause of their reality denial in the first place. If it’s a case of fear of suffering, then it needs to be made apparent to them that they will suffer more if they choose to deny reality than if they choose to be delusional. If it’s a case of insistence on denying reality for the sake of being consistent with one’s previously indoctrinated beliefs, then they may, like person B, insist that reality is un-real and that what is un-real is real despite being proven wrong by the very reality they reject.
So if me and somebody else are sitting in the open and it begins raining, and it makes us both wet, and that other person denies that there is rain despite being drenched in it and having no apparent medical condition that would cause him not to be able to sense this… I honestly don’t know how to rationally engage that person, in such a situation, and as I previously noted, I don’t think it is possible at all.
In nature, stupidity is usually swiftly punished, so a retard cutting off his legs (just search on youtube “retard cut off his legs”) enjoys the consequences of his actions as he is unable to survive. In human created environments, the retard will become almost like a star, and in some societies he will even get handouts.
And people like UPF just LOOOOVE this. They love how retards like them can now escape the natural consequences of their retardation. Now they can claim that strength is weakness, weakness is strength, independence is dependence, dependence is independence, stupid is smart, smart is stupid. They can invert reality as much as they want, they can lie without consequence, yay for them.
And then those of us who call them out, are claimed by other reality-deniers to be the true reality deniers. What a perverted game. And that passes for philosophy in modernity, folks.
I guess my main complaint can be summed up as such: It is way too easy to lie, especially in modern societies. It is also too easy to accuse others of lying, and it is too easy to ignore reality because we are to a large extent protected from it, making unnecessary a honest and direct relationship with it. So people can hide behind whatever lies and delusion they want… either their own, or the state-invented, or religious ones… anything goes. And then folks like statiktech can say “well, person A says this, B says that, but where’s the proof” even as B is getting torn apart and killed.
And so we have people like upf thinking that the reason Rome was dominant is that it was multi-cultural and inclusive, when such weakness (liberalism/Christianity) infecting Rome is one of the main causes of its downfall.
Protip: if you want to figure out the reasons why a society is powerful, don’t look at what politics it has at the peak of its power, but what politics it embraced at the start, the politics which MADE the society rise in the first place, at the peak of its power is when the society starts becoming decadent and corrupt, as those who are in power have not earned the power themselves, but their ancestors did, so they do not know how much blood and sweat goes into it, and they slowly begin rejecting the very principles that made the society powerful in the first place, embracing instead something that FEELS good, despite being less realistic/effective/practical. The spoiled brats living on the success of their ancestors then proceed to shit upon the exact same principles which built the kind of successful society that allows for them to be spoiled brats and not suffer the consequences for it… how ironic. And then these spoiled brats, the liberals/all inclusive/multicultural, etc. type will actually claim to have a moral highground.
Reality will not get in their way. You can see this with some of these feminists too, they get raped by refugess and still persist on not condemning them, not even the person who raped them, cause they ‘feel sorry for him’, while they hate all of their native men simply for being native… and men, and accuse them of perpetuating a rape culture and being toxically masculine, blah blah. You can’t argue with that level of delusion. Such brain-dead retards need to be made to shut up and must be stripped of any political power they have, cause they endanger the non-retards.
Germany lost cause they were heavily outnumbered. If you want to test the efficiency of the system, you must eliminate secondary factors from your judgment
If you want to know which person is a more skilled fighter, you need to eliminate other factors which might provide a huge advantage, like strength, from intervening in your experiment. A woman weighing 40kg may be more skilled than a strong man weighing 120, but because of his sheer strength advantage the man is almost sure to win.
Likewise, if you want to know which country has a more efficient system, all other factors need to be, more or less, equal. Obviously, if Germany has 100 people, and it is against a country that has a million, despite it having potentially a more efficient system, it will lose because of sheer numbers.
Given their actual numbers compared to the allies, Germany did great in the war, largely due to the national-socialistic system. That is the point I’m trying to make.
Particular bad decisions, like attacking Russia, have nothing to do with national-socialism itself.
I’m not saying I consider it an ideal system, but I’m tired of having it presented as some sort of ‘evil’, ‘satanistic’ thing one should just unquestionably reject cause it’s against the current mainstream political sentiments
You think that was my attempt on a put down?
I have no desire to put you down, no need, no objective, not now anyway.
So if you were expecting something fancy or impressive from me then you must think of me very highly.
Unless of course you are just stealing lines from your favourite action movies, without much thought put into it.
Trying to look like a cool clown. Trying hard but not convincing.
Is that me putting you down?
I don’t think so, I think I am being quite accurate with my assessment.
Can you define paranoid nationalism? I mean, for all I know you consider ‘any immigration policy other than completely open borders’ to be ‘paranoid nationalism’, in which case basically every nation in history counts as an example. But if you actually mean extremes of wall-building and denying access to specific kinds of foreigners, then Israel and China are all that immediately come to mind.
It seems to me that as it stands you’ve left yourself open to declare that any example you’re given isn’t paranoid nationalism, it’s merely reasonable.
Wow, you argue so well that i don’t see any point in continuing.
Well, i don’t know what you want me to say, i’m not having any problems as a result of “internationalism”, so i guess it’s working out fine for me.
Can you refer me to anything (histories, scholarship, video - anything) that reinforces this statement? i mean, i wasn’t around to see the Roman Empire at its peak, nor was i present during its downfall, but i’ve read a lot about both periods and never come across anyone blaming its downfall on “liberalism” (which didn’t actually exist at the time in any form we would recognize as such nowadays), and the notion that Christianity was somehow culpable appears dubious at best to me. But the supposed reasons for the actual decline of Rome are myriad and mostly theoretical.
Fact is, the Roman society’s practiced and deliberate inclusion of foreigners correlates time wise with its rise to prominence. IOW, Rome was incorporating foreign people and cultures at an historically unprecedented rate and to an historically unprecedented degree the entire time (many centuries, in fact) that it was emerging as world power and leading right up to its apex of power. Just one example of how: key to it’s long-sustained military might and success was its practice of politically empowering and incorporating foreign territories in order to supply ever growing manpower to the Roman armies.