Battle of Raate Road [winter war]

[darmaster]

Also, why is it that you're always such an utter cunt in your posts?

that is so true lel

the rest of the world isn't arrogant or stupidly suicidal enough to think that  encouraging everything that goes against the interests of their ethnic group is a noble thing.

i don't get it; where did he say that?

[Oberyn]

I of course over-acted my stance on nationalism with my statement to match Panos his blatant nationalism glorifying and to provoke, but nevertheless I don't see nationalism as a positive force, not now and not in the past. I am not saying anything about intentionally acting against the interests of your culture/group, but allowing your culture/group to define your interests is a risky road because it causes cultures/groups to exalt themselves and demonize the 'other', with potentially destructive results. Of course nationalism is deeply rooted and present throughout everyone's thinking, including me, and it will continue to be an important force for many a century, it's importance of course varying throughout world regions as it already does today.

Nevertheless it's importance can and most likely will decrease. Nationalism is indeed a larger form of community thinking. As those communities have grown in size from villages/tribes to states, the diversity within the community has increased and the relative difference with other communities has decreased. Combined with much greater mobility and communication with other groups I think nationalism is definitely in decline, which I'd say causes us to live in a better world. Maybe the size of our communities will at some point increase to regions like Europe and maybe even the world at some point. Kumbaya indeed, don't worry I am not forgetting that this is centuries away and that it seems completely incompatible with some regions in the world.

Also, why is it that you're always such an utter cunt in your posts?

It probably has something to do with being an utter cunt  . And yeah, I'd agree with part of your logic. As I see it nationalism is the latest link in the chain of tribalistic identity that defines the way humans relate to each other, and it's actually the most inclusive form that currently exists.

Where I disagree is when you say that nationalism is "definetely in decline". That's only accurate for a vanishingly small portion of the world population, and it's a relatively recent development. The idea that a reduction of nationalist/ethnic identity is an inevitable development linked to industrialization and wealth is belied by every single developped country that isn't "western". Japan being the most obvious example, it's been at "western" levels of industry and wealth since at least the 19th century, and despite the same post WW2, Cold War M.A.D environment it is still an incredibly closed in, culturally supremacist, ethnically homogenous country.

This idea that "oh, obviously the entire world will go through the exact same ideological and political developments that the "west" does" is just an arrogant form of ethnocentrism. Those changes in the "west" have been a conscious reaction by economists, the social sciences, politicans, policy makers, philosophers, etc... to an increasingly connected world in which total war is no longer a possibility and actually counterproductive to the goal of amassing wealth. The idea that other cultures the world over will reach those same conclusions because they are so self-evidently right and good is incredibly naive and idealistic, and yes arrogant. The only reason this happened in the "west" at all was due to the complete destruction of Europe in WW2, the collapse of it's colonial empires and the rise of the US in the power vacuum created. The perception of immigration and multiculturalism as overall positive and beneficial is uniquely a "western" phenomenon created by these factors.

[Armpit_Sweat]

Yeah, ask Francis Fukuyama about that, that's pretty much his "End of History" theory, that he distanced himself from as soon as he realized people aren't fucking automatons, and the world and humanity wasn't going to suddenly change just because a small portion of the world population deluded themselves into accepting a kumbaya fairy story ideology. People are people, as soon as you start treating them as "rational" actors you end up with cold, clinical theories like pure capitalism and communism, that completely ignore human nature in favour of some bullshit projection of what they want humans to be like. Is/should fallacy.

PS: The only reason China even exists today as political and ethnic entity is PRECISELY because of their past history, not least the cultural imperialism that transformed dozens of disparate ethnicities into a more or less unified one. Pretty much exactly the same way that the ethnicity "french" was largely constructed out of dozens of disparate tribal, ethnic and linguistic groups that were only tangentially related to each other. Every single country, nation, culture that currently exists today exists only because of a sense of tribalism and community. You know what happened to the ones that didn't have it, or weren't "strong" enough? They got absorbed by ones that did, or dissapeared.
I find it particularly ironic you use China as an example considering how culturally/ethnically imperialist they are, and how much their identity is linked to their past, ESPECIALLY the most powerful and widespread chinese empires. They're possibly the most nationalistic developed/ing (it's both really) country in the world at the moment.

For once Oberyn, i disagree with you... I chose China, as it is such a clear example of political and economical reforms producing such a quick result, in terms of a huge country! I do not see how linking their identity to their past, made them achieve what they did today, in any way. But since I am not an expert on China, i will not insist. 
 
Tell me one thing, what is it humanity/nation/tribe wants to achieve in the very end?.. I believe, that liberal and socialistic ideas of what you call "neutered eunuchs developed countries", is what will eventually develop in every country, where basic needs of it's citizens are satisfied ( according to some: physical needs, security and respect of ones "ego"/self ). 
 
Some, like Nietzsche, might call democracy a victory of slaves, where the weakest, dumb majority, controls and restricts the "best and strongest" in society, a secular form of christianity - religion of slaves. Even if that is so, a society of slaves AND masters - is way more disgusting and humiliating. I do not believe that any person, however talented, gifted, or, better say ambitious, is worthy of being a master of others, less fortunate humans, since i believe that every single human is corrupt and unnatural. And I refuse to be a part of a nationalistic Hive, where i am nothing but tiny tool of creating an abstract, fragile and short lasting entity of "Nation", while suffering hardships throughout my entire life, for the better good of the future. Fuck the future! I don't own those, yet unborn, fuckers anything!
 
And when you talk about "the rest of the World", who is clinching to nationalism and racism, one thing comes to my mind - if humans were not seeking safety, comfort, respect ( however worthless is respect, that is equal to everyone else's respect... ) and satisfaction of basic biological needs, then why are there so many immigrants/refugees coming to US and Europe?.. And if liberal democracy is able to sustain a quality of life with happy population ( have a look at "happiness charts" in google ), why would someone still go the dangerous way of nationalism? Yeah, as always in history - to cover for internal problems: "We were great, we are great, it is our neighbors fault we live like shit".

-----------------
I apologies for the wall of text, and not being able to write or think as clearly, as others can, but i hope the general idea is there, somewhere...