> 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.

I'm defending the fact that all life, not merely warfare, is deception.

I am saying to rid divisions generally.

Sounds great in general, just like communism, but it can never happen. The only way would be mass genocide, which is what you want to stop. Stop living a pipe dream

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.

So according to you, defending your nation is nationalism? Should we just let ISIS win, since America is no better?

Edited 3/14/2016 17:07:47

You seem to be just saying patriotism is good since empires are bad.

In the period of history before the end of WWII there is a significant argument to be made that nationalism and patriotism were necessary evils to rid the world of empires, colonialism, and fascism. Empires are significantly more atrocious than patriotism in of itself, so in a time period where empires were the primary form of political organization, patriotism could be seen as a good as a form of rebellious political thought.

I am saying to rid divisions generally.

So in other words...globalist utopianism. I'm sorry to tell you, while the pursuit is noble, it is unequivocally impossible and unrealistic. Stick to pragmatism. Even I don't entertain such ridiculous thoughts as - "pass an amendment to have Senators once again chosen by state legislatures".

Edited 3/14/2016 17:12:28

Sounds great in general, just like communism, but it can never happen. The only way would be mass genocide, which is what you want to stop. Stop living a pipe dream

Communism has happened and succeeded in small "communes". Just a mentality of "What can I do to hurt my neighbour/make myself better" needs to be replaced with "What can I do for my neigbhour or myself?" mentality. It's unachievable, but patriotism is bad - that is the point of this paper, not globalism or communism or anything like that, but to just rid patriotic beliefs.

there is a significant argument to be made that nationalism and patriotism were necessary evils to rid the world of empires, colonialism, and fascism. Empires are significantly more atrocious than patriotism in of itself, so in a time period where empires were the primary form of political organization, patriotism could be seen as a good as a form of rebellious political thought.

Patriotism is one of many forms of rebellious politic thought. But anyhow, without patriotism, empires wouldn't be made in the first place. Can two wrongs make a right? Maybe, with much blood involved. I mean, take the Portuguese Decolonisation wars. They fought, they died, blood spilled, and then all for naught, as in 1975, Estado Novo autocracy was put away, and colonies given independence peacefully.

Edited 3/14/2016 17:13:39

So according to you, defending your nation is nationalism? Should we just let ISIS win, since America is no better?

ISIS isn't that strong, Iran, Turkey and other countries bordering Mashriq could probably take it down. In fact, taking America out would probably make it easier.

But anyhow, without patriotism, empires wouldn't be made in the first place.

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. 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.

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

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.

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...

In reality very few if not any wars have been started due to class divisions

No war or few? lol.

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


About a world government, at the worst case scenario we'd have a totalitarian state that would eventually collapse because of internal pressures for more freedom that will eventually occur if we see the eternal cycle of human history.

Now thing about the best case scenario, or pretty much the normal scenario.
- No more wars between countries over stupid reasons
- International cooperation to solve crisis
- An unified justice system
- No way to do do tax evasion or to delocalise industries as the same rules will apply to everyone
- Limitation of populational migration in the longterm as standarts of living will increase in the hole world
- No need to spend ridiculous ammounts of money in the military
- Less government. Yes, less government in the world, because of the fusion of administrations and elected offices, we'll spend less on the leviathan.
- World sharing of technologies
- 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


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!

The best defense against unlimited government is other governments. The external struggle prevents internal oppression.