Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 47   1  2  Next >>   
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/23/2016 03:00:10


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/23/2016 03:00:52


Paugers
Level 41
Report
#EndDegeneracy
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/24/2016 01:28:23


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
Agreed. While it may seem harsh, it is better for everyone that there is agreement within a nation. Africa for the Africans, Europe for the Europeans, etc
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/24/2016 19:09:24


Paugers
Level 41
Report
^
That would make sense, however, Karl does not believe being white makes you white, Slavs for examples are not, according to him, the same as Germans. Which while technically speaking they are not, all white culture needs to unite if we are to challenge the growing number of Asians and Africans
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/24/2016 19:30:12


Leibstandarte (Vengeance)
Level 40
Report
^
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/24/2016 21:15:54


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
There is no ''white culture'' Russians despise the west and seek to destroy us.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/24/2016 22:46:58


Paugers
Level 41
Report
^
Russians are not white, they are more Asian.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/24/2016 23:03:27


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
^
Russians are not white, they are more Asian.


If you're using Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, etc, Russians fall under Caucasoid/white most defintely.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 00:03:53


Blank
Level 36
Report
Why?
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 04:24:11


Gus squared 
Level 57
Report
If you are referring to nation-states, strictly speaking the title of this thread has a point. The nation-state concept was founded on the idea that each nation, that is a people which was culturally and ethnically homogeneous, should have its own polity, i.e. state.

The nation-state idea has been around for about 200 years, and I believe Greece, in 1830 was the first actual example of one.

If one subscribes to the idea that the world should be organized along these lines, then yes, states should be racially and culturally homogeneous. However, the last 200 years have provided ample examples of how nation-states are far from ideal.

First, not all states were founded as nation-states. The best example is the U.S., which most definitely was not racially and culturally homogeneous in 1776, that is, the people living in the 13 colonies, and those that subsequently emigrated to the U.S. were not a "nation". Mind you, 200 years later, you might consider the residents of the U.S., colloquially known as Americans, as a nation.

Second, nation-states, as the 19th and 20th century have shown, seem to get into a lot of wars. Nations have had conflicting territorial claims, and this has led to a lot of conflict. Consider all of the Balkan wars, both world wars, many of the conflicts in Africa and Asia. The South American wars almost all consist of competing nation-states (although perhaps the South American states should not be considered nations). It is hard to argue that nation-states would be peaceful, especially as it is very difficult to draw state boundaries such that each polity contains just a single nation.

Third, the founded polities, i.e., the states, are rarely inhabited solely by one nation (peoples). What do you do with these other peoples, especially when they are indigenous (or at least have been residing there for generations)?

  • You can follow the U.S. example with the North American Indians and basically ethnically cleanse them from the land and then isolate them on reservations.
  • You can follow the example of many European nations where minorities are homogenized and forced to join the majority (the U.S. does this too with its melting pot idea for immigrants). As an example, when Greece became a country and expanded to its present borders, there were large populations of non-Greeks (Albanians, Romanians, Slavs). These non-Greeks were Hellenized and now several generations later their descendants are Greek. Mind you, some non-Greeks resisted, and those that resisted were ethnically cleansed. Basically the non-Greeks were given a choice of losing their homes or their heritage, most chose to keep their homes. The behavior by the Greeks was fairly standard across nation-states in the 19th and 20th centuries.
  • You can follow some kind of partition system, where the multiple peoples are segregated. Perhaps apartheid South Africa is a good example? Maybe present day Israel and Occupied Territories is a good example?
  • Or you can try to move past the nation-state formulation to an idea of a multinational country. Canada might be an example of this, being founded as a state with 2 nations (British English and French Quebecers). But over the last 30 years there has been a move in Canada to accept multiculturalism and diversity and move away from the two solitudes if its founding.

So yeah, one could easily argue that nation-states should be racially and culturally homogeneous. However, it is pretty obvious that nation-states are a pretty poor way to organize the world.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 17:36:45


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
''The best example is the U.S., which most definitely was not racially and culturally homogeneous in 1776''

Yes it was, almost everyone in the colonies was white and from a western country.

''you might consider the residents of the U.S., colloquially known as Americans, as a nation.''

No you can't.

''Second, nation-states, as the 19th and 20th century have shown, seem to get into a lot of wars.''

No citation. Also I don't care about achieving peace, peace is negative.

''What do you do with these other peoples, especially when they are indigenous (or at least have been residing there for generations)?''

Destroy all expressions of their culture, destroy all evidence of their existence and then assimilate them.

''You can follow the U.S. example with the North American Indians and basically ethnically cleanse them from the land and then isolate them on reservations. ''

Another good option.

''However, it is pretty obvious that nation-states are a pretty poor way to organize the world.''

You haven't shown how.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 17:37:34


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
All of the greatest empires on earth were culturally homogeneous, Rome especially.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:05:11


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Go attack your neighbor if peace is negative.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:08:40


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
strawman, my neighbor isn't an existential threat to me or my culture. If he were muslim I may.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:11:22


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
You said peace is a negative. If peace is a negative, then all conflicts are positive.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:24:36


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
Another straw man, you've also used the black and white fallacy. You've also ignored everything else I've typed in favor of using fallacies because you lack arguments.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:34:38


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
If peace is negative for it's lack of conflict, then conflict is positive.

And I didn't set up the argument, you did.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:39:03


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
Again never said that you're using a straw man and you've setup a black or white fallacy. Can you make an actual argument without resorting to fallacies?
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:41:54


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
I don't think you even understand the point I'm trying to make when I say peace is negative, theres no moral implication at all.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:42:55


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
never said that you're using a straw man

Another straw man
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:45:03


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
The British Blue-Pilled Cuck can't get enough of his Clinton money.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:49:47


Onoma94
Level 59
Report
No citation. Also I don't care about achieving peace, peace is negative.

From your own post :*
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 18:54:48


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
Ad hominem Major.

What does that prove Onoma?
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 19:07:36


The Lord
Level 52
Report
Logic too difficult to understand. Muh 6 million missing brain cells.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 19:38:52


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
hilarious considering no one has grasped any of my points.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 20:01:19


The Lord
Level 52
Report
Peace is neutral, not negative.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 20:13:38


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
You've failed grasp the point. In order for there to be peace you must get rid of or negate all sources of conflict. You must eliminate all inequality (impossible), you must eliminate all cultures or cultural differences, you must get rid of religion, all ideology and you must get rid of human nature. Peace is impossible and if it were possible it would create a lifeless world.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 20:40:06


The Lord
Level 52
Report
You have a different definition for peace. You mean war = competition. I meant it like peace = lack of large-scale military conflict.

But I agree with you that a total lack of competition on any level is negative.
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 21:00:18


Spenglerian Traditionalist
Level 47
Report
War is any intercultural military conflict. Peace is negative for the reasons I have listed and I want none of it.

Edited 7/25/2016 21:00:56
States should be racially and culturally homogeneo: 7/25/2016 21:16:45


The Lord
Level 52
Report
Oh. Well it's easy to get rid of intercultural military conflict. Just get rid of all cultures other than the best one (western democratic human rights culture). Then peace is positive, war negative.
Posts 1 - 30 of 47   1  2  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service