Nationalism is a Joke

Obviously you’ve never been outside of wherever you’re from. Other countries have their own identity, and culture. People in China no more want to be ruled over by folks from the US, than conservatives in the US want to rules over by leftist in their own country. Yes, America is a melting pot, but we have our own cultural divide happening before our own eyes. This one world nonsense, is just that.

 

One continent government is a joke.

 

People seem to be under the impression that you can just force cultures, ethnic groups together, and they’ll be one big happy family. It doesn’t work that way. Every time it’s been tried, it ended up dissolving or ending in catastrophe. History is full of these examples.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire is a classic example. Ol’ Emporer Franz tries maintaining a iron grip over the Balkans, a archduke gets pooped, 19 million die as a result. Scores don’t get settled, 21 years later the slaughter of another 85 million starts. Fast forward another 44 years, another 140,000 die in the Balkans.

This one world nonsense was tried as far back as Alexander the Great, and it always ends up the same way.

 

In a sense the only political question is sovereignty: where it lies.

If the US Supreme Court rules on something, or Congress passes legislation, or the President issues an executive order - there is no higher authority to appeal to.

International institutions may issue orders under treaties and the such, but ultimately if the US government declares this null and void, that's the end of that without a revolution.

By contrast, if the Republic of California's Supreme Court gives a ruling it is subject to the consent - tacit or otherwise - of the Federal government. Failure to comply is insurrectionary and may incur military action.

That's important. That has consequences. To pretend otherwise is naive at best, deceptive at worst.

You need to travel outside of your little bubble, most of the nationalities of the world would never allow global Federalism. And the reality is there will be holdouts who you have to either permit or invade with force.

Additionally, there are those of us in every country of the world who will never permit this. You will have to go door to door and shoot men, women and children. So long as I am still breathing, there will be no world government. The resultant PR outrage will doom your plans.

 

Globalism is different than cultural diffusion. Globalism is more about one-world rule or "government". Cultural diffusion is what you are talking about, and that is thousands of years old and we usually quite readily take on the new aspects of different cultures. That strengthens us because it teaches us different ways of doing a thing or viewing a thing. Forcing or asking people to adhere to one culture and insulating or ostracizing the rest is usually the way totalitarianism creeps in because it restricts freedom of choice.

I think the idea of multiculturalism was politicized to the extent that people have this knee-jerk opposition to the very word or anything suggesting it when American culture is nothing if not multicultural. Multiculturalism is not the problem. It is the good thing that is being offered in order to get people to blindly accept the bad thing- one-world government. That is the problem. They will say that we are trying to bring the world together- which is good. But they will ask that you accept the increasing dominion of institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, or whatever other globalist governing bodies they create. That's the danger.

 

I believe you are in the bubble. Most nations or peoples would have never allowed themselves to be swept into nations like China, Russia, the US, and the like, and they did resist. Where are they now? You're reading the textbook version of what's legal and not legal. Who's subject to who. What some can and can't do. These laws and procedures are just words. If China came here and swept the American army aside, guess what? The laws change. What can be done and what can't be done changes. What some will allow and won't allow means nothing. Can they prevent themselves from being forced into it? That's the only thing that matters.

Natural law is the only set of laws that must be followed. Everything else is arbitrary.

 

It's not about forcing people to be happy. It's getting them to obey. People in the US aren't happy. They argue about everything. Race, sex, religion, classism, economy, etc. No one is ever content and everyone has an idea of how things should be. But they generally all pay their taxes. They all follow the laws. They accept the government as the supreme law of the land.

All nations end up dissolving...and other nations form. Those end up dissolving, and others will reform. But if you trace it back to history, we used to be wanering clans. Than we became tribes. Then we became city-states. Nations. Now we are becoming continental conglomerates. Soon we may be in a world-government. World-government does not mean individual cultures and identities evaporate. That's only some peoples conjecture. It means that everyone exists under a unified governing body. That's it. It's like if Hershey's took over Snickers, Mars Bars, and M&M's. It doesn't mean each of those things now has to become chocolate milk. Each one can retain their identity, but how they do things- how the company is run- comes under the unified administration of Hershey's.

 

You are talking about one world government governing citizens of different countries whose laws reflect their values. So you are advocating a one government over countries whose laws are based on Sharia law...or countries whose laws are based on individual rights...or countries whose laws are based on prioritizing the greater good over individual rights.

What specifically would be steps to get that accomplished. Sounds like quite a task.

 

I see where you’re getting at, and appreciate the effort in your response. You may be right, and the world may be evolving to the point of one world government. But, I think you would acknowledge that this is nothing new, and has been tried so many times before, and it’s always seems to end the same way. History is rife with these of examples. You’re example about Hersey, was great. That’s a illegitimate concern that is always brought up while talking about some form of one world government. So well done.
My point was that there’s always a challenge when one authority is forced on multiple identities at once. History is full of these examples. Alexander the Great, Rome, Austro-Hungarian empire, Yugoslavia.

 

Tell the people that serve in their nation's military that nationalism is a joke. Tell the concept of a national military that nationalism is a joke.

This thread is a joke. The very idea of a nation is nationalism.

 

I do not support world government nor wish it. I said that under the ideal circumstance that world government- or any government- functioned to serve and protect the people it administered to the best of their ability, I would support that. Doesn't seem likely though...

I am curious to know why you would think world government would resemble Sharia law. Sharia Islam can hardly control it's own borders- it's be so corrupted by foreign influences left and right. Anyone who really thinks terrorists are some massive threat has been watching the news way to much. Even in the supposedly endangered state of Israel the tourism industry is alive and well. No one fears anything because this whole terrorism thing is way overblown. Yeah, you are going to get these piecemeal terrorist incidents (if, indeed, it was terrorists who did it), but I doubt the path to global domination is blowing up random people in cafes and stadiums. Strategically, this does not affect the power of the overarching establishment in the slightest. If anything, it allows them to carry out their ambitions twice as quickly.

 

Well, I'm lost really, as I thought you were talking about the benefits of a world government. But I'm not sure what you are saying.

And you are lost too...because I never said that a world government would be sharia law.

 

Ah yes, the deification of the soldier. Whatever they do they do no wrong because they do it for YOU.

It's just me, but I think there's a significant correlation between soldiers serving and soldiers getting paid.

 

There are benefits to world government. My point was that world government would be sold on the good points, but it will likely be accompanied by the worst ones. It's my speculation that some of the worst ones are the actual intent of one-world government.

 

what we're not talking about the deification of the soldier we're talking about the existence of a national military. That is nationalism.

as opposed to your view, "**** you boy, die for me."

but they're serving a nation not the planet.

Further the existence of a volunteer military Asian people who want to serve in the military go and serve in it, protects you from being drafted by your country when they go to war. So even though you are paying for them when you pay your taxes you are paying them to do a job that you would be forced to do had they decided not to.

So whether it's a good thing or a bad thing they are serving you.

 

They serve the government, not me. If I'm in danger of being drafted against my will under any condition, that proves that the military is not serving me or protecting my rights. It does what it wants when it's necessary to achieve its own ends.

 

In a constitutional republic the people are the government. Do you live in Venezuela?

Well you aren't in any danger of being drafted. We have a volunteer military. The fact that you wouldn't volunteer should they need you chose you have no rights you are willing to fight for. so you only have rights by the grace of people willing to fight for them. These rights weren't magically bestowed on people from some Supreme Being they were carved out of the heart at the time the English empire. It took blood shed. Have you never read any history?

 

On paper, they are the government. In practical reality that is absurd.

Have you? The American revolution was not about freedom, it was about who will control the colonies- the local elite or the distant elite. The new government was drafted in secrecy. The new government was populated only by the elites. The new Government wrote up a Constitution full of rights and such, and then proceeded to systematically violate them or ignore them wherever possible. We still commit these acts. It's just against people in distant countries now for the most part. Police are the local menace. But the poetry of the moral knights fighting crime and oppression seems to convince people who don't know what they are talking about that they know more than they've ever experienced.

 

Here's an example. In certain countries, nobody bothers coming into work the day or 2 after a sporting event. Major business basically comes to a stand still. That doesn't happen in the U.S. Its a cultural thing. I'd say we're better because our work ethic is better which explains why we've dominated tech invention & innovation.

Another example is timeliness. A person's time is valued in the U.S. Central and S. America don't share this trait. Making people wait is common place. Showing up late or canceling meetings because you feel like it, is also standard practice. Its horribly annoying and shows a lack of consideration and manners. There's U.S. time and Hispanic time or Latin time that runs about an hour behind=) Another reason no major tech innovation of note has come from that culture.

 

Depends who you ask.

Middle Eastern countries think rape is totally cool and marrying kids at the age of 8 is fine.

That doesnt fly here.

So which way does the world government go? Keep in mind, upsetting the Muslims likely leads to suicide bombings until... forever.

Choose wisely.

 

In other words saving culture doesn't matter because it never stays exactly the same?
Logical fallacy.

The same argument could be extended to not bothering to protect biodiversity, because in any case nature is always changing, and sometimes species do go extinct if they can't survive.

 

How about the one that allows the woman, and other innocents to flee, and provides education, and a means to becoming a part of the economy. One that actually sentences repeatedly convicted criminals to that barren place, and lets them happily rape each other.

Let em suicide bomb their own population that volunteers to remain, but give innocents a way out. If they have prior life sentence type crimes, land em on an island called the purge.

And that mental flaw is not an isolated circumstance to a single religion, or population sole located in the middle east...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...hool-bus-driver-no-jail-time-rape/3622221002/

I mean since we are talking fantasy, but I think we both missed the point of the OP.

 

well you're free to think reality is absurd.

if you want this discussion to continue you're going to have to show evidence for anything you said above.

 

Talk about fallacies... How does saving culture equate to protecting biodiversity?

 

The issues everyone label as Nationalism are frequently more about culture than nationalism. Many people in western countries become concerned about losing their culture then are promptly labeled nationalists.

Why can it be ok for us to help and accept migrants retain their culture..but if we are concerned about our own culture suddenly it's nationalism. There's a double standard. Migrant culture are treated more important than our own.