In 1987, Joseph Kony founded the Lord's Resistance Army to replace the Ugandan government with a Christian theocracy. He felt the contemporary government was too apatheist, which was against Christian, Ugandan ideology. So began a long campaign of mutilations, pillages, and all kinds of war crimes against the infidels, for the prosperity of a Christian Uganda. On the 11th of July, 1995, the worst war crime in Europe since the Second World War began in Srebrenica, ending in the death of 8,000 Bosnan Muslims at the hands of proud Orthodox Serbs, who felt like they were heroes, securing the homeland. And yet patriotisms are governmentally and socially supported, just about everywhere. Though these are extreme examples, why support patriotism at all?

How does this relate? It has everything to do with religion, and nothing to do with nation. Also, why show these examples (of Christians killing) rather than examples of Muslims and Christians killing?

And similiarly, most everyone knows and condemns Hitler's atrocities, but far less have heard of the (albeit smaller) Mau Mau Rebellion. Just as a synopsis of it, British settlers enforced “collective punishment” against a rebellion in Kenya, which led to terrible concentration camps and war crimes; Barack Obama's grandfather died in one of the concentration camps. And you know what? Archives about the rebellion are still being withheld by the British government, and British reparations for these atrocities began only in 2013 - about 60 years afterwards. And yet, there is no disgust with Britain about such a thing.

Why not mention the Soviet or Chinese mass death tolls? I accept criticizing Britain, but you seem to have a double standard in examples.

Edited 3/14/2016 15:19:28

I happen to agree with Жұқтыру in everything here. And It's hard for me to agree 100% with something.

I am very much favorable to a federal world government. It could even keep the actual countries as states in this new world country.

About people complaining with examples, I don't think it takes away the quality of the text. Plus Soviet and Chinese mass murders were on the name of ideology as well, but not a nationalist one, so I don't know if it fits very well on the anti-patriotic agrument. Plus, a lot of the deaths were caused because of mismanagement of the economy and stupid farm collectivisation. Not all those deaths were planned by the government.

Why did the Belgian settlers kill? Because of king and country.

The Belgian colonisation of Congo didn't had any nationalist motives. It was actually the dispute between the great powers and the speech of our king Leopold II at the conference of Berlin that gave our country the permission to colonialise the Congo.


.. And the many deads (I'm sure they are less than 8 million) are caused by the economical greed and were not killed in the name of our country as the colony was a personal domain that did not belong to the Belgian gouverment. In fact , the Congo was one great company back in its establishment- The International Congo Society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Economical exploitation at its finest.

Edited 3/14/2016 15:55:06

world government

NONOononono

Yeah, Congo was a personal possession of Leopold for the sole purpose of personal gain.

I am very much favorable to a federal world government.

Absolutely no one is surprised at this.

how does one reduce their patriotism?

Well, just reminding yourself to do logic thinking, selfless thinking, but beyond that, I would to this "exercise" of kinds: Say "I hate [your country], since it is an awful rat country that frankly needs to get reconquered by [country that has conquered your country in the past, with bad results], since [your country] sucks so much."

Is there a difference between Patriotism and Nationalism? Because some would argue that Patriotism is 'defensive' where as Nationalism is aggressive conquering patriotism.

Well, I go by the OED meanings.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/patriotism;
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nationalism

Nationalism is basically a greater magnitude of patriotism, according to them.

Is patriotism ever good? For instance would it be useful in to speed up the recovery of a struggling country like Greece?

I don't think patriotism is ever good. And miracle recoveries are based on economic strategies, not really so much propoganda. See West Germany after the war. In total shambles, right? Nationalism practically illegalised. But with their strategy of efficiency socialism, they recovered quite quickly, by 1950, they were well-off again.

All of the above mentioned places, The Congo, The former soviet states, All of North america & south america (with the exception of some islands and French guyana), Eastern Europe, and former Ottoman states have been freed from brutal colonial rule due to nationalist (or patriotic, call it what you will) movements.

Smedley answered most of what you said for me, but I want to say that the Soviet Union did not promote Russian supremacy. Stalin's policies were not racist, but they were collective punishment - I mean, he was Georgian himself, not Russian. L. Brezhnev was Ukrainian. Most the other leaders of the Soviet Union came from Russian-mixed families.

Nationalism results in "boo hoo, xenophobia AND the death of EIGHT THOUSAND INNOCENT MUSLIMS BOO HOO!!!"

Why are you mocking this? These were 8,000 innocent Bosnans, and you just mock their awful deaths since they were Muslim? Scum.

Vietnam War protesters and Iraq War protesters. I would consider both patriots in that they were willing to oppose the government in defense of their love for their fellow citizens. What is your opinion of this type of patriotism?

Well, this is better than the kind of patriotism that supports this war. But you don't have to be a patriot to protest a war that your country fights, and you will still have the associated problems of patriotism.

Also how about patriotism in the defense of nationhood? If a small country were say attacked by a larger neighbor for no other reason than for land, wealth, and international prestige is it right for the attacked country to rally the support of its people to resist with calls to nationalism or should they let themselves be conquered?

You'll have no idea who is in the right and in the wrong. Maybe country a was doing a pre-emptive strike, since country b was developing nuclear weapons. Maybe not. You won't be sure, so I like to follow this quote.

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."
- Ernest Hemingway, American writer.

What about classism? Marx argued that ethnic divisions would be replaced by divisions based on wealth and class. In the globalist utopia that I assume you envision wouldn't class divisions just be used by leaders like ethnic divisions to start wars and engage in oppression?

Are you saying that there aren't classes of wealth today? And why is it such a bad thing? Also, classes don't war each other. They work for each other; they get better out of each other. A hierarchy, of kinds.

How does this relate? It has everything to do with religion, and nothing to do with nation.

Maybe you can say that for the LRA (although Kony was known to promote the Acholi folk in particular), but not the Serbs. I only emphasised Orthodox since that is a big part of their cultural identity, and really, the only thing differing them from Bosnans (Sunni) and Croatians (Catholic). Anyhow, let me compensate your troubles here with another example: the Rwandan genocide. The Belgian colonists used divide-and-rule ways and basically out of one ethnicity made two that hate each other (Tutsi and Hutu), and encouraged nationalism of these folk. Half a million folk died since it.

Also, why show these examples (of Christians killing) rather than examples of Muslims and Christians killing? Why not mention the Soviet or Chinese mass death tolls?

Since more folk already know about Islamic extremism, I wouldn't really count it as nationalism for most Islamic etremism. Also, most folk already know about what happened in Russia (and all Soviet archives have been declassified) and in China, but not so much are they taught about British horrors, which have been much longer lasting and killed more.

world government

NONOononono

I am very much favorable to a federal world government.

Absolutely no one is surprised at this.

I have to ask you guys, how much of a bad thing a world government would be? Can't be really worst then the current situation we have today.

Edited 3/14/2016 16:13:45

Why are you mocking this? These were 8,000 innocent Bosnans, and you just mock their awful deaths since they were Muslim? Scum.

I don't think he was mocking them for being Muslim; I believe he was mocking the relatively small number of dead compared to the death toll from colonialism.

classes don't war each other. They work for each other; they get better out of each other. A hierarchy, of kinds.

Throughout history, class warfare has definitely existed - just look at the Roman Republic, for instance.

I don't think he was mocking them for being Muslim; I believe he was mocking the relatively small number of dead compared to the death toll from colonialism.

Well, that was just one happening of two days. And it doesn't matter if patriotism is less worse than colonialism - it's still bad.

Throughout history, class warfare has definitely existed - just look at the Roman Republic, for instance.

Ok, I am against class-patriotism, too. I am in general just against things that divide folk - borders, and patriotism are probably some of the biggest blocks against an united mankind.

> physics paper

10/10 deserves Nobel

Ha, I got what you were really meaning this "this is a physic paper I wrote". Well, physic as in tangible, you can touch it.

Are you saying that there aren't classes of wealth today? And why is it such a bad thing? Also, classes don't war each other. They work for each other; they get better out of each other. A hierarchy, of kinds.

No there are definitely classes of wealth today, but they have not replaced ethnic and religious divisions as the primary methodology of separating people like Marx predicted. In reality very few if not any wars have been started due to class divisions, however without ethnic or religious divisions (which you want to get rid of) than class divisions would come to the front and cause the same type of types of "problems" you associate with nationalism and faith. Wealth inequality has markedly increased in the last decades...you don't think this would boil over in a globalist society?

Also you do realize your ideology is at the very fringes of political thought right?

I have to ask you guys, how much of a bad thing a world government would be? Can't be really worst then the current situation we have today.

Let's not experiment and find out shall we.

Edited 3/14/2016 16:26:56

Well, this is a bit hypocritical.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/114232-country-week-belarus-2

What I'm trying to say is that don't let xy or any other Forum poster bullsh!t you. They're and we're all very brainwashed from the world and the more opinions we digest through we end up losing our ability to perceive because the truth becomes elusive.

Perhaps because truth is a falsehood.

Clement Attlee for MVP

1. He's not Belarusian, he lived in Belarus. Won't share anything else about him, but still.

2. He's clarifying things, like how Grodno has ugly women.

Why did the Belgian settlers kill? Because of king and country.

They killed because they were dickheads exploiting the natives, not because they loved their country.

The Turks were nationalistic and seeking to hold the integrity of the Ottoman Empire together, while the Armenians were nationalistic and seeking to separate.

This argument is based on some pretty horrible lies that I wouldn't expect to hear from a non-turk:

"The christians were hurting the integrity of the Ottoman empire, and it's their own damn fault they were killed"

"Those nasty armenians were nationalists, and trying to seperate from the ottomans"

I'm just going to kind of ignore the turkish propaganda part of your post from now on...

So the deaths from WW2, WW1, The Balkan Wars, Vietnam, Korea, Sandanista-Contra war, the Afghan civil war, the American Civil war, the war on terror, Franco-Prussian war, the wars of Italian unification, all of the 1848 revolutions, the Greek revolution and the Somali Civil war only amounted to 8,000?

WW2: This war wasn't caused by nationalism, but Imperialism. Britain declared war on Germany after they invaded poland in 1939, not after the passage of the anti-semitic nationalist Nuremberg Laws in 1935, the irredentist Anschluss in 1938, or any other nationalist event. The war was not even fought over atrocities like the holocaust, but because of the imperialism of Japan, Italy, and Germany.

WW1: Okay, I'll grant you this one. Although I'd argue that the main effect of the war was actually ending imperialism for a lot of places, but still. That's 17 Million dead.

The Balkan Wars: These wars were nationalistic in nature, but they were aimed at freeing these places from imperialism. In fact, the death toll from both balkan wars was only around 50 thousand. While I couldn't find exact figures for the casualties from the ottoman conquests in europe, they were almost certainly higher since they continued for around 400 years.


Vietnam war, Korean war, Sandanista-Contra war, the Afghan civil war: The deaths in these wars were caused by the USA and USSR, not Nationalism. The communist revolutions may have been nationalistic, but there is no doubt in my mind that these conflicts would not have had nearly as many casualties if they were simply civil wars without outside involvement.

The war on terror: This wasn't caused by nationalism, it was a response to terrorist attacks.

Why are you mocking this? These were 8,000 innocent Bosnans, and you just mock their awful deaths since they were Muslim? Scum.

The only reason I made a point of mentioning that they were muslims is because you did the same in your original post:

On the 11th of July, 1995, the worst war crime in Europe since the Second World War began in Srebrenica, ending in the death of 8,000 Bosnan Muslims

Smedley answered most of what you said for me, but I want to say that the Soviet Union did not promote Russian supremacy. Stalin's policies were not racist, but they were collective punishment - I mean, he was Georgian himself, not Russian. L. Brezhnev was Ukrainian. Most the other leaders of the Soviet Union came from Russian-mixed families.

This was actually my exact point, but okay. Glad you agree with me.

Edited 3/14/2016 16:43:02

Xapy, you should start writing books on this domain.

No there are definitely classes of wealth today, but they have not replaced ethnic and religious divisions as the primary methodology of separating people like Marx predicted. In reality very few if not any wars have been started due to class divisions, however without ethnic or religious divisions (which you want to get rid of) than class divisions would come to the front and cause the same type of types of "problems" you associate with nationalism and faith. Wealth inequality has markedly increased in the last decades...you don't think this would boil over in a globalist society?

I am saying to rid divisions generally.

This argument is based on some pretty horrible lies that I wouldn't expect to hear from a non-turk:

"The christians were hurting the integrity of the Ottoman empire, and it's their own damn fault they were killed"

"Those nasty armenians were nationalists, and trying to seperate from the ottomans"

I'm just going to kind of ignore the turkish propaganda part of your post from now on...

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.

This war wasn't caused by nationalism, but Imperialism. Britain declared war on Germany after they invaded poland in 1939, not after the passage of the anti-semitic nationalist Nuremberg Laws in 1935, the irredentist Anschluss in 1938, or any other nationalist event. The war was not even fought over atrocities like the holocaust, but because of the imperialism of Japan, Italy, and Germany.

Imperialism's fuel is nationalism. The Germans, Italians, and Japanese, they liked what was happening, since they were nationalist.

The only reason I made a point of mentioning that they were muslims is because you did the same in your original post:

The grounds I did was to emphasise their faith, as that is really the only thing separating Serbian, Bosnan, and Croatian culture - their faiths (Orthodox, Sunni, and Catholic).

This was actually my exact point, but okay. Glad you agree with me.

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

What I'm trying to say is that don't let xy or any other Forum poster bullsh!t you. They're and we're all very brainwashed from the world and the more opinions we digest through we end up losing our ability to perceive because the truth becomes elusive.

Perhaps because truth is a falsehood.

Are you making a case for bigotry?

Edited 3/14/2016 17:02:47

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

I do not mean the Armenians are at fault, I'm saying that nationalism is at fault. If the Armenians or Turks were not nationalistic, there wouldn't have been a genocide.

And imperialism and nationalism can overlap. Take Hungarian irredentism for example. They want Transylvania , Vodjina(screw you I know it's spelled wrong), part of Croatia, Slovakia, and Carpathia. Same with Ottomanists wanting the lands of the Ottoman Empire, China wanting Mongolia-Tuva, etc.

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.

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.