But then I remember the rulling party in the UK are the tories, and I just feel sorry for you.

Why does that matter? Scotland is mostly autonomous anyway thanks to Devolution and the implementation of the Smith Commission's proposals.

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

Nationalist movements are the only way that imperialism can end. And yes, they are, by definition, opposing ideas. Imperialism is when a single government headed by an emperor rules over a diverse group of people, whereas Nationalism focuses on each group of people getting their own nation.

(again, with the exception of expansionist nationalism, but I've already explained that)

Why have any casualities at all?

Because a world where everybody sits around holding hands and eating plants is a world that does not and cannot exist. Taking nationalism away from the world does not stop casualties, it simply reverts it back to imperialism, which was ended by nationalist movements.

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.

I'm not even going to try to get into arguments about conspiracy theories. Suffice it to say i'm not a strong believer in them.

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

You cannot throw away Nationalism and Imperialism and expect a functioning government to stay in place. There has never been a functional Anarchy in place...

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.

I feel sorry for me too... I'm just glad Scotland has its own parliament and limited devolution. David Cameron promised us devo-max by now but he lied. =(

"Normal" Scots live in houses, not in pubs.

Incorrect.

But is Ox a normal Scot?

A normal true Scot.

Why does that matter? Scotland is mostly autonomous anyway thanks to Devolution and the implementation of the Smith Commission's proposals.

While you are right that Scotland has seen small increases in devolution recently, but it's NOTHING what David Cameron promised us.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/25488.aspx

Devolved matters

agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport

Reserved matters

benefits and social security
immigration
defence
foreign policy
employment
broadcasting
trade and industry
nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
consumer rights
data protection
the Constitution

This is PATHETIC. He promised home-rule and maximum devolution by now and this is NOTHING like that. The Tories are liars and they'll only get worse with Johnson about to be their next leader.

Nationalist movements are the only way that imperialism can end. And yes, they are, by definition, opposing ideas. Imperialism is when a single government headed by an emperor rules over a diverse group of people, whereas Nationalism focuses on each group of people getting their own nation.

Nationalism doesn't even have to be from one culture - as I was saying before, it's quite government-led. 40 years ago, there were no Serbs, no Croatians, no Bosnans, no Macedonians, and no Slovenians nationalism - just Yugoslav nationalism. Same thing with Soviet Union, and same thing with China today. Same thing with Italy today, same thing with Hindu India. Multiculturalism doesn't cancel out imperialism. But empires must be started by one group of nationalist folk listening to their leader, who conquer another. That's how all empires are started. Nationalism absolutely does not cancel out imperialism.

Because a world where everybody sits around holding hands and eating plants is a world that does not and cannot exist.

It can exist, but we are a long ways from it (not going to happen in my lifetime nor yours). But the less war and wrecking folk's lives we have, the better.

I'm not even going to try to get into arguments about conspiracy theories. Suffice it to say i'm not a strong believer in them.

Just don't trust America, so much, or any government.

You cannot throw away Nationalism and Imperialism and expect a functioning government to stay in place. There has never been a functional Anarchy in place...

There have been several working anarchies in place, but that's besides the point. Taking away nationalism and imperialism does not mean making anarchy - it just simply means no more warring folk, no more xenophobia, so on. To you, do what you want, and to me, I will not be bothered. See Switzerland, Iceland, Costa Rica, Panama, as some of a few non-nationalist, non-imperialist countries that are not in anarchy or anything like that.

Nationalism doesn't even have to be from one culture - as I was saying before, it's quite government-led. 40 years ago, there were no Serbs, no Croatians, no Bosnans, no Macedonians, and no Slovenians nationalism - just Yugoslav nationalism. Same thing with Soviet Union, and same thing with China today. Same thing with Italy today, same thing with Hindu India. Multiculturalism doesn't cancel out imperialism. But empires must be started by one group of nationalist folk listening to their leader, who conquer another. That's how all empires are started. Nationalism absolutely does not cancel out imperialism.

I didn't say that it cancels it out. Nationalism is the successor to imperialism; It is how countries break free from imperialism.

I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. Expansionist nationalism is not nationalism. Expansionist nationalism is how empires are created, and is the groundwork for imperialism. Real nationalism is how Nations can break free from imperialism.

It's very similar to socialism. Yes, National Socialism and Democratic socialism both have the word "Socialism" in their name, and both ideologies can be classified as simply "Socialism", but this does not mean that they are the same, or even similar ideas. Most democratic socialists would make the argument that National socialists are not "real socialists".

See Switzerland, Iceland, Costa Rica, Panama, as some of a few non-nationalist, non-imperialist countries that are not in anarchy or anything like that.

Panama and Costa Rica Were once part of Spain, and gained independence through nationalist movements.

Iceland used to be a part of Denmark, but a nationalist movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_independence_movement) let them be a nation.

Switzerland is a very unique country to say the least. Their situation allows them to be unique, and it is not the same situation that any other country is in.

Edited 3/14/2016 21:02:51

While you are right that Scotland has seen small increases in devolution recently, but it's NOTHING what David Cameron promised us.

Well to be fair it looks like you're going to get control of tax policy, which is huge.

A new Scotland Bill will be in our first Queen’s Speech and
will be introduced in the first session of a new Parliament.
We will implement the recommendations of the Smith
Commission so that more than 50 per cent of the Scottish
Parliament’s budget will be funded from revenues raised in
Scotland and it will have significant new welfare powers to
complement existing devolved powers in health and social
care. We will provide the Scottish Parliament with one of
the most extensive packages of tax and spending powers
of any devolved legislature in the world. We will retain the
Barnett Formula as the basis for determining the grant
to cover that part of the Scottish Parliament’s budget not
funded by tax revenues raised in Scotland. We will agree
new rules with the Scottish Government for how the block
grant will be adjusted, to take account of the new devolved
tax and welfare powers. And we will ensure that where
responsibility for taxation has been devolved, tax changes
only affect public spending in that part of the country.

^This was in the 2015 Conservative Party Manifesto. I only watch Question Time and PMQs so I may be missing out on something. Hasn't he fulfilled his manifesto pledge?

I didn't say that it cancels it out.

You said something pretty close to that. Nationalist movements are the only way that imperialism can end.

Nationalism is the successor to imperialism; It is how countries break free from imperialism.

He was not for Hindu Gujarati independence. He was for independence of British India, with all Muslims and Hindus, Marathi and Tamil, all living together in the same country. He was just for Britain getting out of India and stopping its awful things there. And a big part of breaking away from countries is just unneeded nationalism. Division will never be better. Scotland and Catalunya, they will be worse off if they get independence, since they don't have as many folk they can work together. When West Germany and East Germany unified, it got better for both countries. When Czechslovakia parted, it got worse for both countries. You don't have to be a nationalist to rebel against your country, you just have to be a rebel.

I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again. Expansionist nationalism is not nationalism. Expansionist nationalism is how empires are created, and is the groundwork for imperialism. Real nationalism is how Nations can break free from imperialism.

Real nationalism is how countries get fractured as Radio Free Europe tries to make a Karkalpak rebellion in Uzbekistan (and totally failed), or when Russian propoganda in Ukraine tells the Russians to fight against the evil philosophic successor of Stepan Bandera. It ends in unneeded war and death, and in the end, if they get independence, more isolation and xenophobia to add to the stockpile.

Panama and Costa Rica Were once part of Spain, and gained independence through nationalist movements.

Iceland used to be a part of Denmark, but a nationalist movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_independence_movement) let them be a nation.

Switzerland is a very unique country to say the least. Their situation allows them to be unique, and it is not the same situation that any other country is in.

I wasn't talking about these countries' pasts, but today. They aren't nationalist, they aren't empires, but they aren't anarchies, either (as you say that is what happens when both nationalism and empiricism is taken away). Also "Switzerland is a very unique country" what a pardon. Switzerland's past has been based on human resources, that's all there is to it.

There's a positive correlation to the amount of crap you say and the number of people who don't give an intercourse.

I wasn't talking about these countries' pasts, but today. They aren't nationalist, they aren't empires, but they aren't anarchies, either (as you say that is what happens when both nationalism and empiricism is taken away). Also "Switzerland is a very unique country" what a pardon. Switzerland's past has been based on human resources, that's all there is to it.

Yes, they are nationalist. A country having a flag, a national motto, a nationality is nationalism. A country having a government that is only legitimate if it is chosen by the people is nationalism.

No, I mean switzerland is very unique. They have managed to not fight a war for over 200 years, They have at least four major linguistic groups that all just kind of get along, they have a very advanced economy based on stuff like banking and watch manufacturing which allows them to be the second richest country per person in the world, all while being locked away in the mountains without a coastline.

Real nationalism is how countries get fractured as Radio Free Europe tries to make a Karkalpak rebellion in Uzbekistan (and totally failed), or when Russian propoganda in Ukraine tells the Russians to fight against the evil philosophic successor of Stepan Bandera. It ends in unneeded war and death, and in the end, if they get independence, more isolation and xenophobia to add to the stockpile.

How is having more smaller countries a bad thing?

Yes, they are nationalist. A country having a flag, a national motto, a nationality is nationalism. A country having a government that is only legitimate if it is chosen by the people is nationalism.

No, at most, they are slightly patriotic. In Iceland, it is actually a bit taboo to be nationalist, same for other Nordic countries. Living in a modern country doesn't make you nationalist. And I don't know what you mean legitimate - Arabia is a legitimate country, and an absolute kingdom.

How is having more smaller countries a bad thing?

1) to get those smaller countries, lives often have to be killed, and it can be unsuccessful, too.
2) it just divides more and more, and gives more oppurtunity for war in the future
3) it discourages international cooperations, and international crises such as environment are left untackled
4) escaping to tax havens
5) more money stolen from the folk in order to get militaries
6) more spending on politicians and government

These are the 6 worst points of statehood, as the world is now. With every new country, these problems grow. But this is off-topic anyway, the point I'm trying to make to you is, even without nationalism or empiricism, it hardly leaves anarchy as the only choice - just a country without nationalists or empiricists.

There's a positive correlation to the amount of crap you say and the number of people who don't give an intercourse.

You know, Genghis, you can shut up, since there is a positive correlation between being wrong, being arrogant, and your being there. I don't want to risk anything. I'm not talking to you, I'm not bothering you, so why don't you take your OT "words of wisdom" somewhere else, or actually play the games you accept?

Edited 3/14/2016 21:55:41

so you would desribe anarchism as an utopia for us, Жұқтыру?

I think limited government is needed - but much more limited than most today.

No, at most, they are slightly patriotic. In Iceland, it is actually a bit taboo to be nationalist, same for other Nordic countries. Living in a modern country doesn't make you nationalist. And I don't know what you mean legitimate - Arabia is a legitimate country, and an absolute kingdom.

I meant that that is the definition of Civic Nationalism.

Civic nationalism is the form of nationalism where the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry (see popular sovereignty), to the degree that it represents the "general will". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some source for the comment about nordic countries, as It's not something I've heard of before.

Saudi arabia is not a nationalist country. They are Essentially Monarchist (take everything i've said about imperialism and replace the word imperialism with monarchism, the two systems are very similar, as Imperialism is a type of monarchism). If a movement to replace said monarch with a democratic government were to emerge, it would be a nationalist movement.

1) to get those smaller countries, lives often have to be killed, and it can be unsuccessful, too.
2) it just divides more and more, and gives more oppurtunity for war in the future
3) it discourages international cooperations, and international crises such as environment are left untackled
4) escaping to tax havens
5) more money stolen from the folk in order to get militaries
6) more spending on politicians and government

These are the 6 worst points of statehood, as the world is now. With every new country, these problems grow. But this is off-topic anyway, the point I'm trying to make to you is, even without nationalism or empiricism, it hardly leaves anarchy as the only choice - just a country without nationalists or empiricists.

1. This isn't an inherent part of secession, and indeed there have been a lot of examples of peaceful secession in history.

2. This is what you said before, to which I said how is it a bad thing. As for it causing more wars, I would disagree. If there were thousands upon thousands of nations, there would be no "Superpowers", no wars on the scale of wars between superpowers such as the world wars would happen. Sure, every single nation could get into a huge conflict with each other and make a huge mess, but this pretty much doesn't happen. Additionally, if every distinct group can decide for itself what to legalize or criminalize, what language to recognize, etc., I would tend to think this creates a lot less violence due to it preventing civil wars.

3. Seems like speculation.

4. This is also a problem today, so not sure what you think changes.

5. Again, seems like speculation and fearmongering on your part. How is this intrinsic to having more countries?

Edited 3/14/2016 22:16:15

Interesting. Always feels refreshing to hear you defining about an ideal society.

I feel like I should make a thread for such note entirely based on your opinion, Жұқтыру. This marks out very specific points that intrigue me, especially on the whole ideology mindset.

I don't see need to play the game. The community for it becomes harder to sift through by the day.

Meanwhile, I'll try my best to cure the forum of cancer.

So you harass actual content creators while doing little to stop shit-posters like Talking Fan?

I meant that that is the definition of Civic Nationalism.

Civic nationalism is the form of nationalism where the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry (see popular sovereignty), to the degree that it represents the "general will". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract.

Ok, well, I'm mostly fine with "Civic Nationalism", but don't call it that. It's not nationalism of any kind. It's very un-nationalist, it's just apathetic. What I am against in your Wikipedia meaning, though is "Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[4] and that democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.". This leads to the smaller problems of nationalism, maybe low on xenophobia if they conciously avoid it, but centrism, and supremacism. "Patriotism is the belief that your country is the best since you were born in it." Like I said in my paper, light nationalism gives these problems in a light form.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some source for the comment about nordic countries, as It's not something I've heard of before.

http://www.thelocal.se/20120614/41444;
https://books.google.com/books?id=3v1yAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1157&lpg=PT1157#v=onepage&q&f=false;
https://cavatus.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/disgrace-of-swedens-national-day/;
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-13/news/mn-34677_1_european-union

It's not totally gone (nor is it really anywhere), but it's pretty low.

Saudi arabia is not a nationalist country.

The average Arabian is proud of their country. Ask Cardwell, for example.

They are Essentially Monarchist (take everything i've said about imperialism and replace the word imperialism with monarchism, the two systems are very similar, as Imperialism is a type of monarchism).

Monarchism doesn't cancel nationalism. In the times of kingdoms, in truth, nationalism was much bigger, racism much more accepted.

If a movement to replace said monarch with a democratic government were to emerge, it would be a nationalist movement.

That's not what nationalist means. They like their country, more than even a patriotic level? Nationalist.

1) to get those smaller countries, lives often have to be killed, and it can be unsuccessful, too.

This isn't an inherent part of secession, and indeed there have been a lot of examples of peaceful secession in history.

Yeah, that's why I said "often". Secessions are way more often than not bloody, though.

As for it causing more wars, I would disagree. If there were thousands upon thousands of nations, there would be no "Superpowers", no wars on the scale of wars between superpowers such as the world wars would happen.

Yeah, instead of bursts of war like the World Wars, there would be continuous war everywhere. No war would be on the scale of that, but death tolls from wars would still be higher anyway. The more countries you have, the more countries there are to war with, the more ways the theode can get bigger.

Additionally, if every distinct group can decide for itself what to legalize or criminalize, what language to recognize, etc., I would tend to think this creates a lot less violence due to it preventing civil wars.

If everyone could pick whether they want to illegalise drugs or not, just for themselves, one man, that would solve everything. No need to develop into groups or something - your group doesn't know you best, you know you best. But that'd never happen with conserves and socialists at the number they are today. You think Englander nationalists are for what you're saying? Or that Spanish patriots are totally for Catalunyan independence?

it discourages international cooperations, and international crises such as environment are left untackled

Seems like speculation.

Ok, let's see where was the UN or anyone really, when that big bloody border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea began, killing hundreds of thousands for naught? Or where is internationally banning petrol, since it harms all of us when it's burned (not to talk about global warming, too)? Can you imagine what could be done if all military spending was stopped 10 years ago, in the sciences, for example? Or what if convicted genocidists escape to another country, as Joseph Kony did?

4) escaping to tax havens

This is also a problem today, so not sure what you think changes.

All these problems I listed, they're problems today, and they'll only grow with more international divisions.

more money stolen from the folk in order to get militaries

Again, seems like speculation and fearmongering on your part. How is this intrinsic to having more countries?

Some countries don't have military forces. But the great majority of them do, by far the majority. And they obviously spend money on them, and to get the money, they have to take it from folk. I don't see how this is speculation or fearmongering - this is just a truth of life today.

I feel like I should make a thread for such note entirely based on your opinion, Жұқтыру. This marks out very specific points that intrigue me, especially on the whole ideology mindset.

Ok, if you want to.

It's hard to pay attention to all cancer.

My issue is when people post tireless, Neverending rhetoric of the same caliber. Content should change. Not necessarily much, but more than this.

Scotland and Catalunya, they will be worse off if they get independence, since they don't have as many folk they can work together.

Uh, NO. Both would be better off on their own.