[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 76 KB, 1280x720, Why I'm not a Nationalist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16053491 No.16053491[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

https://youtu.be/ZWnoBhCbOk0

>> No.16053546

I probably agree with him
You can't have a nation without a nation-state, that's not how in-group and cultural developments work
The comments are immensely retarded

>> No.16053551

>>16053491
Not /lit/

>> No.16053553

How big is everyone's dick size?

>> No.16053561

>>16053546
agreed. i appreciate his take but the commebt section is mind numbing.

i think that nation states are evidently and historically the most stable kind if government. weither liberal fascist or even communist (USSR’s russifying campaign, all of china). most other things lead to pointless internal devisions and infighting.

>> No.16053563

>>16053491
>pseud e-celeb
Not literature, go back.

>> No.16053569

>>16053561
>i think that nation states are evidently and historically the most stable kind if government
>>16053546
>You can't have a nation without a nation-state
Doesn't this mean you're a nationalist? i.e. advocate for a nation state?

>> No.16053576

>>16053551
Yes /lit/

>> No.16053581

>>16053563
E-celeb that talks about /lit/

>> No.16053606

>>16053569
i guess in a way. i think its the most effective practical way to promote a civic energy on the individual and national level.

>> No.16053630

>>16053581
This, and it's pretty clear he's young and not yet familiar with enough of the world to be making these "informative" videos. He's like a pseudy /lit/ version of that groyper guy

>> No.16053654

Nationalism is a modern ideology just as artificial as communism and liberalism.

>> No.16053665

>>16053654
Okay that's cool and all but the question was whether or not nationalism is a force for good in the world or not

>> No.16053668

>>16053665
If it's an ideology of modernity it obviously isn't.

>> No.16053690

>>16053654
>>16053668
t. Le 14 yo tradcath

>> No.16053691

>>16053654
peepee reductionist take. at least do the simple out for your kind and say modern nationalism. the idea of a nation (notnecissarily a state), is as old as recorded history and probably older.also artificial is kind of an arbitrary term without parameters. i assume you mean a bottum up constructed ideology created on paper unlike something like feudalism that just kinda sprung up do to the conditions of the era rather than theorycrafting.

>> No.16053694

>>16053569
>Doesn't this mean you're a nationalist?
Absolutely not, but I more generally deny these supertribal and/or universalist concepts like race (yes genetically clusters exist but the kinds of inherent kinships people impinge on them simply aren't there), class consciousness (while people that do similar professions across the globe show similarities in outlook, that is a non sequitur towards Marxist class consciousness) or sexual identities (yes, there's probably some really complex string of genetic factors and hormonal fuckeru that make you gay or bi or whatever, but that obviously doesn't lead to any sort of kinship)
I'd much rather have something like Rome during the Dominate but without the crisis obviously, local governance with a super-government that acts as a integrator and a protector
>>16053561
I disagree, infighting is very rarely cultural, the differences in culture and religion are mostly masks of other issues, the ivory coast did just fine until the economy went bunk and then the culturo-religious in-groups suddenly began to matter a lot more
Even though it will sound very cringey and has to applied very careful with crystal clear definitions and almost no room for interpretation, Popper is right

>> No.16053698

>>16053553
Like 16 cms erect and 5 cms flaccid.

>> No.16053704

>>16053630
>pseudy /lit/
/lit/ is already pseudo whatever you can call it sooo

>> No.16053751

>>16053694
>infighting is very rarely cultural
Isn't infighting by definition always cultural?

>> No.16053779

>>16053751
Would you say that members of a homogeneous family in a small village fighting over who got the goats is cultural infighting?
Maybe we don't have a common definition

>> No.16053786

>>16053779
I would say so, yes. What would you define as a culture in this instance?

>> No.16053799

>>16053694
>disagree, infighting is very rarely cultural, the differences in culture and religion are mostly masks of other issues, the ivory coast did just fine until the economy went bunk and then the culturo-religious in-groups suddenly began to matter a lot more
You are sort of refuting yourself. You have a game theoretical model and change the payoffs and the Nash equilibrium becomes more defective and less cooperative, it's perfectly possible and even likely that the defections 1) happen at an earlier stage than they would otherwise 2) the defections are more numerous, severe than in monoethnic societies (this is pretty obvious, ie. pogroms and genocides) if there is less ethnocentrism meaning less payoff for cooperation and more for defection following Hamilton's rule

>> No.16053862

>>16053786
>Definition of culture
Common nodes of thick description between any number and/or grouping of people that usually interpreted in a variety of ways
We don't have any evidence that genes record thick description as far as I am aware
In this instance, the aesthetics and the legal details are affected by the culture but the ultimate dispute derives from economics
Each sibling wants the goats for oneself
In my original comment, I was referring the clashes of cultures people often talk about when arguing in favour of nation states (from personal experience anyways, not trying to accuse anyone here of anything)

>> No.16053904

>>16053491
He didn't properly touch on the point of the formation of nations and how fucking fake and gay they are.

>> No.16053907

>>16053491
Nationalism is bad for most people. When the word is divided into nations some nations are stronger than others. These few strong nations compete with one another and oppress weaker nations directly. The only way to stop this would be a world government of some kind which I support. So, I can say I'm not a nationalist.

>> No.16053954

>>16053904
Wdym?

>> No.16053965 [DELETED] 

>>16053907
Well that's because human psychology evolved seperately in different geographic locations on the planet is it not? He even says himself that patriotism (the devotion for a certain way of life, people and/or land) has always existed and probably always will exist because some humans just get along better with each other than others.

>> No.16053980

>>16053965
Maybe. Maybe not. Whatever the cause of the nation state is it's effects are detrimental to most of humanity in the short term and to all of humanity in the longterm.

>> No.16053988

>>16053954
just look at the formation of italy, it never existed before the unification, less than 2% of "italians" talked the dialect that then became the italian language the biological and cultural differences between the north and the south and so on
There never was an italian people, it's an artificial fake and gay modern creation forced by a state.
But you can look up even the formation of Germany, France and so on. It's all artificial and forced, there is nothing genuine about those identities and this is true for all nations.

>> No.16054014

The real redpill on nationalism is that it's just little-leauge globalism. There was some account I read of a guy who would encounter a new dialect if he would just walk a day in any direction in France. It was from some medieval guy, before France became a nation, and imposed a standardized French from the top-down. All those regional dialects and cultures and subethnic groups were homogenized by nationalism.

>> No.16054021

>>16053988
True but wouldn't that provide the populace with military and economic economies of scale? I.e. it would be much better at defending itself and have access to much more resources than before

>> No.16054027

>>16053491
Not /lit/. MODS

>> No.16054029

>>16054021
I don't really see any problem with a nation state being artificially propped up by a state is what I'm trying to say

>> No.16054069
File: 101 KB, 1024x904, 10xnci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16054069

>>16053954
>>16053988
and to put it even more generally consider how all nations started
essentially a group of armed mafia men conquered lands with agricultural villages and imposed payement of gibs for protection, with time the conquered villages had to addopt the language and religion of those who conquered them and intermarried with them (their daughters), later on the mafia clan become a hereditary aristocracy with a supreme leader aka kang then after the bourgeois merchant revolutions the mafia aristocracy is abolished or their power is reduced but the result of their conquest and assimilation is formalized and the local plebs identified with the fake and gay traditions that were forced on their ancesters
it's all so tragically retarded and pathetic

>> No.16054075

>>16053988
>>16054014
By these accounts, all ethnocentrism is "fake and gay" and all localism is "little-league globalism" at the limits. All this is is a process of centralization following technological progress, it doesn't detract from the validity of ethnocentrism any more than something like the Terran species uniting against an extraterrestrial invasion

>> No.16054087

>>16054021
>>16054029
well yes, my issue is mostly that they build their identity on it, you can still view it as pragmatically useful without all the gay ideology

>> No.16054128

>>16054075
>something like the Terran species uniting against an extraterrestrial invasion
but what conflict is there? it's true that extraterrestials migrate here due to economic conditions and often do crime and they will eventually replace the terrestrial population yet this is great for the economy if you are at the top, also you can move in on their planet without any issue and live like a kang there

>> No.16054149

nationalism is a necessary force to oppose globalism, all these retards doesn´t know that because of nationalism, we have a separation between the state and the church, is the reason we don´t have multiethnic empires among other things

>> No.16054160

>>16054149
>we have a separation between the state and the church, is the reason we don´t have multiethnic empires among other things
have you ever gave a look at any modern western society anon?

>> No.16054166

>>16054160
have you? is up to you if you want live in a niger typer of country instead of living with your fellow countrymen that has some sort of social cohesion

>> No.16054167

>>16054149
This, nationalism depends on a liberal conception of the purpose the state serves.

>> No.16054172

>>16054160
What we have now is just what nationalism results in eventually because of this
>>16054167

>> No.16054177

>>16054166
Anon America is literally a multi-ethnic empire, not complaining about it cause i don't give a shit but you have to be retarded to not see it lmao

>> No.16054195

>>16054177
>Anon America is literally a multi-ethnic empire

yeah, and because of that, it will fail (all multicultural nations doesn´t last long), America is purposely wanted to negrified the rest of western nations, that´s why they opposed nationalism and support bureoucratic organizations like the European Union to do their dirty job

>> No.16054615

>>16054069
Yes, but if this process didn't have happened, you'd have the european population fragmented in small nations ready to be divided-and-conquered just like it happened in Africa. If there was a way for these large countries to exist and those different nations to cooperate and form a modern state without the dirty pathetic process you mentioned, it would be better, but that's what happened it was for the better.

>> No.16054713

>>16053546
>>16053561
He is not a nationalist you dumbfucks, he says it in his video

>> No.16054749

There are two kinds on nationalists, the tribalist and the bootlicking civnat. He accurately refuted the latter. The former still remains undefeated.

>> No.16055799

How can anyone stand to listen to this guy? Why isn't he just writing essays, blog posts, whatever...His content would be a lot better off on a different medium I think.

>> No.16056965

>>16055799
The only video of his I've watched in its entirety is the one on societies of control, other than that I couldn't get past his monotone voice and lack of presentation. Just like you said, it's as if he's dictating an pseud wordpress blog, can't stand it

>> No.16057537

>>16056965
Before he dissapeared some of his videos were literally just him reading off of Wikipedia.

>> No.16057588

>>16054749
kant retroactively refuted all tribalists

>> No.16057760

>>16054021
>economic economies of scale
lol wot

>> No.16058012

>>16054014
Sure, but it's actually little-league Imperialism. Globalism is a different thing with different motives for homogenization

>> No.16058187

Literally nothing interesting in any of this guy's videos. Why do people interested in politics talk about philosophers as if they matter instead of logistics, geography, conspiracies etc.? You could learn more about the world by studying the dynamics of sex cults than by watching a single one of these videos.

>> No.16058214

>>16053491
>Channel banner is srtupid dumbass christian monk
Welp not one second, skipped, cya

>> No.16058230

>>16058187
Because n
Political Philosophy is more interesting

>> No.16058238

>>16054713
lol, why would i watch his video, i just used it to spout my own opinions on the subject!

also, when is your next video? its been a year guy.

>> No.16058243

>>16058230
It's not though. It's literally "Hey, make up some stuff to justify my rule."

>> No.16058290

>>16053988
Why not become the social constructor instead of complaining about social constructs?

>> No.16058708

ecelebs and their zoomer fans are faggots.