Liberism and Nationalism are not mutually exclusive. The founding fathers were Liberal Nationalities. Now this is not counting these modern fake liberals.
It isn't that simple. Nations become states; the Zionists wanted a Jewish state. But more often states become nations. The nationality of American was created by the existence of the American state. Before America came to be there wasn't a lost American nation wandering the world demanding their own state. His definition of nation is also vague to the point of uselessness and potentially dangerous. Is he talking about race? culture? religion? Some of these things are very dangerous if used as the basis for a state.
Liberalism allows freedom to individuals, but it also allows freedom to groups. The United States and other liberal states guarantee freedom of religion for example. Liberalism does not depend on individualism to the extent claimed. Groups can coexist in a liberal framework also. Historically it was Protestant and Catholic agreeing to coexist peacefully that was the catalyst for liberalism. Liberalism is basically a philosophy of live and let live, and that applies to individuals and groups equally.
@@99Yteu So-called trans rights are not rights at all, especially within the context of an individualist society where property is privately owned. In such a society, the individual owners of restrooms, e.g., restaurants, can decide what policies they want to adopt for their establishments, and patrons, i.e., customers, can decide either to patronize the establishment or take their business elsewhere. No one, not a group nor a voting majority, would have the right to dictate to a property owner how their property must be used.
Liberalism as a international relations theory is fundamentally naive and dangerous. Most people are tribal and not guided by reason and the belief in goodwill and universal morality. Liberal values can only flourish in societies that are relatively homogeneous, i.e. where these values are shared by its members, and social trust is high. In a heterogenous society, where the members’ loyalty is tribal and their morality is non-universal (i.e. the non-liberal belief that morality applies differently to different peoples), liberal values are not only naive but self-defeating. That is why liberal values can only flourish in societies that realize these dangers of multiculturalism and tribal loyalties, and whose first commitment is that of its own survival - which demands that we protect ourselves from those who do not share the West’s enlightenment values of reason, goodwill, and universal morality. Tolerance - an other Western value - does not mean that we mustn’t or shouldn’t protect ourselves from those who seek to replace these values with non-liberal ones. To not be willing to stand up and defend our values and make sure that they live on, is to not value them in the first place. Those who believe that our liberal values, such as individualism, tolerance, privacy, freedom of speech, and the rule of law, is a good thing, must also be willing to fight to protect them.
Exactly. That is the major problem in Europe. We have very quickly moved from homogeneous very liberal societies to multiculturalism. Our liberal values are being eroded from within. Free speech, democracy, equality are all being compromised, ironically justified as an attempt to protect them. Meanwhile those of us who want to actually preserve them, who will not compromise and understand that it can only be done through preserving the nation state and a homogeneous culture within it, are being vilified as nationalist and racist. Which of course to many borders on, or is the equivalent of, Nazism.
Nietzsche predicts this kind of absurdity. It appears you can get everywhere with any old appeal - or virtually any old appeal - to 'morality'. By 'morality' we now mean equality. Anyone who doesn't recognise that morality is equality, is guilty of every modern crime and must be silenced - in the name of morality and the Church of Rawls and Latter Day Saints. Arguing with this morality may be accelerated to the worst offence, for which any reaction may be justified - because standing in the way of ultimate schemes to liberate humanity is the worst thing you can do. Two conclusions - 1) ideas run this world and bad ideas do immense damage. 2) Never compromise with the idea that these bad ideas are about morality. Always point out the selfishness, greed and intolerance in them. Never affirm the view that these people are moral - at all! Challenge every assumption of these mumbo-jumbo merchants.
99Yteu Well, the term ‘nationalism’ has been seriously tainted since WWII. But up until then, the idea of a nation state with strong borders was actually something most arduously argued for by people on the Left, who realized that it is impossible to have and maintain a welfare state without strong borders. And the idea of no borders at all was a far right position up until just a decade or so ago. It was something only argued for by people such as anarcho-capitalists and the Koch brothers who wanted cheap labor.
Great talk about the basics - which many academics struggle to recognise consistently. In my experience many academics who specialise in political theory and in ideas have blind spots about nations and nationalism. Both Marxism and liberalism have an inbuilt bias against the nation - the credulity of academics during Brexit showed that quite clearly. After Brexit, US reaction to Trump just repeated the very same errors. I think the mostly voodoo history about invented communities, which rampaged through universities, has not helped matters. That sometimes literal-minded and convenient view answered all known questions and made it impossible to hold back the still rising and continuing tide of dangerous delusions which has inoculated liberal and Marxist minds from reality. Two centuries of being proved absolutely wrong on every count is clearly not enough. They wouldn't be so stupid if they weren't smart enough to make a good case against established and obvious reality.
I've never come across someone contrasting Liberalism with Nationism at the core philosophical level like this. Thank you. I'm a hybrid, leaning more towards Nationalism as I age and witness where unfettered Liberalism has brought us.
The fundamental difference between right and left-wing thought is that the right derives (ought) from (is) and the left derives (is) from (ought). The right says things like, we (ought) to restrict immigration to ethnically and culturally similar countries because there (is) less social cohesion and trust when groups with different beliefs, behavior, and intelligence are forced to live together. The left says things like, it (is) wrong to racially profile people because we (ought) to believe that everyone is equal. The right deals with reality and makes practical behavioral prescriptions accordingly. The left makes moral claims based on their ideology about how they WISH the world to be. So you see, the political disconnect comes from both the fact that the principle equation is reversed and the terms apply to opposite domains. The right's Ought deals with reactionary behavior, the left's Ought deals with ideology. The right's Is deals with reality, the left's Is deals with morality (strictly within their egalitarian framework, of course). This is why people say the left doesn't deal in reality - it literally doesn't factor into their equation.
@@dreamer097 : Politics is not so one dimensional. There are at least three identifiable axises, not one. 1) Wealth distribution: left/right (socialism/capitalism). 2) Power structures: liberal/authoritarian or totalitarian (liberty/oppression). 3) Social ideals: progressive/conservative/regressive (progress/status quo/ reversion). Simply understanding the meanings and the roots of the language itself is enough to debunk much of what John says in this video. But I would have a field day with this one, and I'd rather spend that time progressively. Being that I am a progressive because what I care about is progress. Not conserving broken systems, nor trying to regress to older even more broken systems. I am not opposed to my own evolution as an individual, nor the evolution of my species as a whole. But many are opposed to that, and so they mix up terms and use disingenuous arguments. That anyone has this conversation without even mentioning nationalism is a form of bigotry, let alone pointedly avoiding that the delusions of bigots is really what all of the fuss is about, just proves they are bigots themselves. If anyone can't see that dividing people the entire point of bigotry, and that nationalism is a form of bigotry, it's because they don't want to see it, or they are too cowardly to say it out loud. Most often people just aren't that stupid, and they know they are bigots. It's why they get so insanely upset by people calling them out for it. For instance, I've been called a "racist" plenty of times (I'm white as rice, but grew up where I was the minority in all of my schools), and I just laugh at anyone who calls me that because they are only making a fool out of themselves. Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. I guess it's that I am strong enough to have not lost all hope for my fellow humans who are stuck in the 1950's. Generally speaking, I dislike a lot of humanity, but that doesn't mean I don't care about them all. Even were I completely selfish, it would behoove me to care about others because that creates more peace and prosperity for everyone in general, and that makes my life happier, healthier, and far Far safer. People who think making enemies instead of making friends is a better course of action is exactly why we have wars, terrorism, and so much hate and violence in general.
@@aylbdrmadison1051 Groups want to become humanity, that's what you don't understand, there will not be a lot of lineages in the end living together, you are delusional, your concept of bigotry is childish, and nature doesn't give a f about it, your understand of history is pathetic, the fact that you are a minority, means that your group is inferior to organize itself and grow, therefore you want the group that was successful in doing so, to share everything with you, stop being a pathetic loser, don't blame your insufficiencies into others.
At the end of your thing. You just prove the point. That you can be a national country and have liberty.. The more liberty somebody has the less power the nation has to control their citizens. This is the only reason why Nations reject liberty.
Liberalism and nationalism aren't opposite concepts. The distinction between primary individual and social being is arbitrary as well. We are both. Nationalism is a nature-based concept derived from family, peer groups that you seek loyal, trustworthy people around you that know you best and may have the same needs. Call the logic behind a universal/natural principle. The idea to form a state of homogeneous people to maximize the shared benefits is the reason behind nationalism. The problem is that we are individuals as well. Nation focused states have the problem that the act on this small line between individual rights and common benefit/thinking. So no matter what these states do they harm individual citizens. Because no one can predict the needs of millions and can act in the right way to fulfill all their needs. Nationalism leads therefore into individual suppression. Liberalism on the other hand doesn't need a state. He derived this conclusion from the mentioned concept that we are primary individuals but we are social beings as well. So he thinks there is the need of a external power like parents for children who watch, care and educate their children. But we all know that the state doesn't want a educated, wise citizen with a critical mind. Our normal life and our daily interactions prove him wrong. We all seek freedom and act with each other mostly friendly. So neutral judges and a security we may have without a state and forced taxes. It's just a question how to organize this. When we visited the moon, have satellites and so on it seems pretty easy for me to organize a society based on maximum individual rights with an universal law to don't harm other. And since we a social beings as well we do that social stuff the state does but now we know our vis-à-vis. When my body belongs to me then the output of my work belongs to me as well. I should have the right to decide where I invest MY money, because I worked for it no other. Nowadays the state is the biggest thread to individual rights.
I think it's all about the female and masculine aspects of ourselves when it comes to all ideologies. They tend to go to radical if people don't have their personal stuff figured out. Some are more female aspect based and the others are more masculine. That's why people fight over words it's really what people don't get about themselves and in this way they project their issues to the outside. The ideologies themselves should be viewed as ideas or directions for situations to pick. Sometimes the left is right and sometimes the right but people take it personal if they have issues with themselves not the other side, maybe the other aspect of oneself.
Very interesting talk. Liberalism and nationalism (as defined in the lecture) both make important contributions as different means to establishing a good society, but the critical factor is whether they are both oriented toward a good and proper end. We get hung up arguing about means of arranging society as if those means are the ends in themselves, when they are not. Liberalism recognizes the innate value of human life and protects an individual's right to live freely, but nationalism reminds us that when individuals use their freedom poorly by pursuing unworthy ends, those individual lives are devastated, as well as their families and the nation as a whole. We are individuals who thrive in community. Individual life does possess intrinsic value, but freedom is not the ultimate good in itself, and when that freedom is misused, our freedoms quickly disappear. These points are all true, and can only be balanced accordingly when properly oriented in pursuit of the good. What I'm advocating for is a type of synthesis of Straussian natural rights theory and Kirkian pragmatism; Strauss affirms that the basic value of the individual is the whole reason for government existing at all, while Kirk provides the prudence to prevent us becoming a crusader state. But so long as society hides from the fundamental conversation involving the nature of the good, we will be spinning our wheels and talking past one another, by focusing on means when the real question is about ends.
My problem with nationalism is that when taken to the extreme it ends up invalidating the individual, you are reduced to a mere number ... Almost meaningless! Whereas, the classical liberal tradition based on the social-contract is between the individual and the nationstate, a symbiotic relationship which enables and furthers a well functioning society with neither one dominating the other.
@@99Yteu Yes, that was certainly the case with Germany, Spain and Russia... You see it's that hyperpartisan way in which you justify the failures of nationalism blaming the opposition that's the largest problem, we can't stay consistent if pur problems are caused by the opposition, but their problems are of their own doing. Let's flip the script. If liberals were to say that the only reason we have open border activists and x+ many genders proposals is counter-culture to the historically dominant *extreme* far-right positions from anti-immigration to blatant racism, and religious nuts spousing that premarital sex causes earthquakes etc. we remove real problems and the responsibility from contemporary liberalism and liberals, but similarly nationalism that has been used to create an us versus them, that is there basically on all of your rhetoric shouldn't be on the shoulders of liberals but of the reasonable nationalists.
Anything taken to the extreme is poisonous. Liberal extremists assume that they are the ultimate authority on what's morally good, and will try to force LGTB sexual norms onto religious communities. In the end, extremist liberalism also wants everybody to look the same, because - as was said - liberalism is ultimately a universalist ideology. I believe that Donald Trump is the nationalist backlash against the extremist SJW movement that has become so powerful in the last few years.
@@Hannodb1961 I similarly oppose all of those SJW lunatics etc, but to say that those people trying to force their way are somehow liberal, just because that's the label they spouse, is like saying I'm a nationalist but we have to implement open borders. I'm pretty sure there aren't many (imo any real) nationalists who'd accept that claim just because self identification is somehow the most important thing even when that contradicts reality. So what I'm trying to say is people might say they liberal and act the opposite making them not liberal? And if one thinks that's unfair because liberalism isn't binary, try saying that those for open borders are nationalists, and difficulty arises whether we should discredit ideologies due to retards or discredit the retards to be able to more properly continue exchange between that has already got us this far.
@@aksukovala181 You raise a fair point, but I do think we agree to a point. I think the common ground we have here is that one must recognize the limitations of your ideology. Extremism occurs when an ideology becomes an ultimate authority rather than just a guiding principle. It's then that the nationalist extremist will try to snuff out all individualistic differences, while the extremist liberal will try to force everyone to accept what he deems to be inalienable individualistic rights.
@@Hannodb1961 Absolutely. Pacifism is one of the few, if not the only thing where you could say absolute extremism might be beneficial overall, but even that struggles with real world application due to the danger of abuse from outside forces. I've seen quite a bit about liberalism, and I tend to agree more with some of the earliest approaches where any limitations for negative freedom had to be strongly argued for, and even things like human rights could only be achieved through this method, instead of just assuming them for whatever one claims they are. The problem with this philosophy in its extreme is, indeed, why not just go for survival of the fittest and target/hurt/kill your competition etc, ending up horrible for anyone but the strongest, smartest, most creative... for anyone but the fittest. Now to the contemporary liberals and how I see the current problem, is that we ended up with a more (I don't have an apt name for it so) let's say American liberalism, or maybe positive freedom and human right centric liberalism is better, where liberalism becomes mainstream culture and the evolution of the ideology is taken over by all individuals even those with no understanding of "their own ideology." The continuation has been a (imo) fast and consistent increase in the absolutism for human rights, often even heavily on the price of freedom, sometimes for the slightest of freedom or the feeling of safety or etc. This change might also reflect the change I see at least locally where positive freedom gains importance from the negative one. For example the last couple of years "liberal" feminists against cat calling. Just a couple of days ago I saw another video (from Lauren Chen this time) reacting to women who demand that they can avoid all interaction with strangers, potentially criminalizing flirty familiarities or etc. Basically she has the negative freedom where no one stops from her from going out for the jog, nor from stopping to get headphones etc. The men have the right to whistle at her, they can exchange pleasantries or etc. She would rather have it that instead of her being able to use headphones, or, if to enjoy nature, go somewhere more remote, but to maximize her positive freedom she is willing to curtail the negative freedom of the men, just because she feels it's her human right to not be communicated to, yet she takes no responsibility, when even a custom shirt saying "Strangers don't talk to me" might do the trick. I don't know if you care to read all of this nor if you have anything to add or to disagree with, but I'm sure we'd have plenty to argue just as well as agree on in the real world rather than in the comment section of just a singular topic of a youtube video.
The tenets of liberalism are of course individual rights and the maximization of utilities for the individual. It's universalistic, pretentiös, rootless, and risk destroying the collective and unitary forces of a society.
I take some issue with the professor's distinction of "nationalism" as a group of people who feel that their common characteristics should allow them to have their own state. While it may be slight, the distinction that people of similar "characteristics" wanting to preserve their own identities, as a people (with all that entails: traditions, culture, etc.), and people of similar characteristics SEEKING to create their own state, which is what it sounds like, using his formulation, are quite a different thing. As for the professor's description of liberalism, I would say that it is far closer to the "classical" liberalism of yesteryear, rather than what has morphed into the leftist liberalism of today. Now, it may well be his intention to contrast the old liberalism vs nationalism, but seeing as how this issue has become a point of current conflict in today's world, I'd say it bears little sense to contrast ideologies that are far less relevant today, at least in so far as they have been described here, than the actual conflict of today's ideologies. Those are a liberal left that has completely warped its nascent ideals into a close-minded, juvenile yearning for a nanny state to absolve them of all responsibility while actively and insidiously imposing their views on all who would disagree. These would, first and foremost, be the nationalist-minded people who understand the fallacy of "diversity is our strength" thinking, and are loath to discard centuries of precious traditions, values, culture and cohesion for the sake of a misguided "enlightened" utopian ideal of diversity where the very diversity they seek prevents any societal cohesion and sharing of values.
I agree that national competition trumps a world order predicated on the belief that every individual possesses a sovereign soul, but the precarious primacy of violent nation-states could succumb to a prosocially principled global economic order that makes a large plurality of non-militerized corporations our primary social unit.
How are liberalism and nationalism even comparable? One is a political dynamic that explains someone's leanings for policy and the other is an organizational structure for power?
Well, is the "nationalism core assumption" [6:59] wrong? NO. As it happens with the other apes, we too are actually a tribal species. We literally do depend on our parents for at least the first decade of our lives. So, what's wrong with it?
Nationalism based on group theory has now become muddied as previously effective categorisation and successful implementation of liberal ideas is struggling with the expansion of the size of previously smaller sub-groups. When a group within a nation is large enough and has drastically different views and values to the agreed upon past consensus and identity it causes innate internal conflict. One example being the semi isolationist communities of near exclusively Muslim areas in Europe. Group theory here is evidenced by the vast conflict in values and fundamental national assumptions. When cultures within a nation feel so drastically different we see the evidence of tension and impossibility to govern successfully for all in a nation.
Edit: historically religion and also rich vs poor have been the major conflicting groups. With race, religion and social standing being exacerbated by the size of each populace, we clearly see social and political divides and tension today
Both ideas are just that, ideas, notional. If he’s a nationalist and America is an individualist nation, why’d he invest so much of himself in that nation? Just asking. But I agree in sort of parallel with one of his ideas: We are indeed in the Age of Rights. I would add that the age of Relationships is over.
I've always been proudly and unapologetically a nationalist. I've always found it weird that Nationalism is portrayed as somehow being evil, just because the NAZI's (Who were Imperialists - which is the polar opposite of Nationalism) abused that term. It's like saying Democracy is evil because Communist states called itself "Democratic". I find the critics of Nationalism are usually using intellectually lazy and poor logic, usually by just lumping very different kinds of people together and labeling them all with some kind of "-ism". Simply saying "That's [Insert Label]" is not a valid argument against anything. I want the Afrikaner people of South Africa to have our own state.
@@MA_KA_PA_TIE See, thats my point. They weren't nationalist socialists, they were national socialists. The difference is subtle, but important. A nationalist is someone who believes that homogenous ethnic or cultural groups have a right to national selfdetermination. This is clearly not what the nazis believed, they believed that strong nations must rule over weak nations, which is imperialism, the exact oposite of nationalism. So, what is the "National" in National Socialism? Most Socialists back then were internationalists. They thought workers across the world must throw off any other identities that divide them, and unite as workers, to reap the benefits provided by the state. The Nazi's believed in Socialism, _but only for Germans_ In other words, the word "National" in "National Socialism" has nothing to do with Nationalism, it is a qualifier for the main idea - socialism. Nazism isnt nationalist and socialist, it is a particular form socialism only. But didn't they refer to themselves as nationalists? Sure. Like dictators refer to themselves as presidents, and communists refer to themselves as democratic republics. Up to that point, Nationalism had quite a respectable reputation for its fight against imperialism and colonialism. In fact, the treaty of Versailles is the ultimate Nationalist victory. So the Germans used Nationalism to justify annexing German lands. But the moment they started taking non-German lands, that justification fell flat, and the world became hostile towards them. So the short version is: I do not acknowledge that the nazis were nationalists. I believe that association were made by internationalist leftists who see sovereign nations as an obsticle to their globalised internarnationalist agenda. The left has always advanced their cause with smears, rather than reasoned arguments.
@@Hannodb1961 they were nationalistic. The whole point of attempting to expand was a way of glorifying their nation. The whole propaganda was around nationalism. They were even ready to purge other ethicities
@@thecurious926 Everything you just said is the definition of imperialism, not nationalism .The Communist states claimed to be democratic as well. Does that mean that they were democratic? Should we therefore now all condemn democracy and declare never again? Should we legitimize the abuse of language by those who gives words the oposite meaning? Sure, if Transwomen are really women then then the Nazi's were Nationalists. But then, what does "women" and "nationalism" actually mean? No, the Nazis were not nationalists, they were imperialists. Imperialism is the believe that your nation is superior over others, and therefore has the right to rule over other nations. Nationalism stands opposed to that in the believe that every nation has the right to national self determination. The moment the Nazis occupied Czechoslovakia, they exposed themselves to be the imperialists that they are, and all the talk of "Nationalism" was just propaganda to make them look good. And that's the point: Up to then, Nationalism was viewed as a noble pursuit, just like democracy, that's why the Nazi's used it in their propaganda. Nationalism was the moral propagandist justification to obscure their imperialism.
@@Hannodb1961 the expansionism aspect which you call imperialism is just one aspect. The sense of imperialism originated from nationalistic sentiment anyway. To get back previous glory. And what about the other things. The idea of a German race, purging or making other ethnicities leave. I am not actually saying nationalism is a wrong sentiment. It's what you are willing to do with it as well...but you can't tell me the Nazis weren't nationalistic. He literally won the election based on that
I don’t get why I can’t believe in individualism and nationalism at the same time. Aren’t nations just a large group of individuals? The nation is sovereign because the individual is sovereign.
0:47 the original question being posed is simple one merely needs to go back in time to look at our evolution, we evolved in groups just like all of the other apes
He is discussing CLASSICAL LIBERALISM which is associated with contemporary conservatism, not contemporary liberalism associated with the American left. Very confusing without that distinction made.....
But what do you do with the following problem of majoritarian nation states. What is they want slavery and/or racial segregation? Are all "citizen" rights purely majoritarian? Do non-citizens have no rights in a nation? Is it OK to simply kick all minorities out of the country if that's what people want? And what's to stop eugenic policies? And do CHILDREN have no rights? Is there no such thing as legal child abuse? So while I agree there are many problems with how to govern the world from a "liberal" perspective, I see many serious issues with the 'nationalistic" approach. It's seem impossible to safeguard individual freedoms inside a nation state without the concept of human rights. But then, human rights ultimately undermine the nation state. Doesn't seem resolvable.
I spent many years coming up with a new functional system (30+ years). I even published it. No one cares. Please remain encouraged and positive, but I am not sure people want solutions since they are so committed to their version of the problems. Here is the book that you too can ignore, not explore: kevinfitzmaurice.com/product/how-to-govern-anything-ocean-government/
Frankly I don't really get the argument. So you have liberal nations, they extrapolate from their sense of individuality make colonialism but then find out its bad. Why do we now need the nation again?
Nationalism, liberalism, socialism, traditionalism, communism. These ism, are all one and the same they all came from 18th century enlightenment renaissance Europe. They all believe in the same thing. They are all founded on the philosophic and economic systems of the enlightenment. They all are secular and based in atheism. They all hope to achieve utopia and paradise on earth They all want to unite the human race under them. They all believe in humanism, that is the worship of man, to make god in our own likeness and image. These isms, are all based around humanism. Core tenants of the birth of modern philosophy from the renaissance and enlightenment. The modern world and Modernism as a whole, is not just the technological state that we are in. It is the philosophy, ideologies and economic systems. Modern philosophy is so engrained in our presuppositions, that no matter what you do you cannot escape from it, since the entire world is “modern” the entire world believes in these things. The fundamental philosophy from the west, Scholasticism, Skepticism, empiricism, nominalism, dualism, atheism, nihilism, existentialism. All of these isms, are evil, they come from the same place, and they have the same end goal and purpose. To compare one ism from another means nothing. Escaping the box of modernity is what one should contemplate
I disagree with the presenter: Most states are not Nation States. South Africa is not a nation state by any stretch of the imagination - neither is the vast majority of African states.
True. And those states don't work very well. Multinational states er either riddled with ethnic strife or tyrannies where one nationality rules over the others.
@@SheepWaveMeByeBye I don't think the common factor is so much ethnicity as it is values. People with the same values, language and culture will tend to associate with one another, and if this association persist over many generations, then an ethnicity is formed. However, when the values which created the ethnicity disappear, loyalty towards the ethnicity also tend to disappear, and I think that's exactly what is currently happening in Western countries. Democracy was never suppose to be about deciding on principles, but rather on what the best way was to implement shared principles. Without - at the very least - shared common principles which everyone agree on, democracy is doomed.
@@Hannodb1961 This isn't true, and the history of the West is a perfect example of the fact that Nations don't just emerge because of similar values: those values are created and enforced. This is why people today talk about nationalism like it's some kind of gentle thing, but one of the best examples of how Nation States emerge in the history of mankind was German Unification led by Bismarck. It happens through negotiations, mass education/propaganda, realpolitik and yes, war, which at least in theory, is aimed at securing borders.
@@jeviosoorishas181 Yes, but mostly no. You undermine your own argument with the German example. Yes, force is involved, yes propaganda is involved, yes education and the media is involved. But the ideal of a unified Germany existed long before Bismarck came along and executed it. Moreover, there was a lot of preexisting cultural, linguistic and religious common ground between the German states already. One of the biggest questions during the unification of Germany was what to do about Austria. The reason she was finally excluded from the empire is because of her non German empire that wasnt compatible with the ideal of a German nation state. So yes, while there is some level in force involved in Nationalism, it only works because of pre existing cultural values that binds a people. Where that preexisting cultural identity doesnt exist, the Austrian empire, the soviet union, or even all of the so called African "nation" states is an example of what happens. You cannot force nationhood on a people that never was a nation to begin with. I know, I'm South African, and "South Africa" is nothing more than a geographic label, it can never be a cultural identifier
HOW TO FIGHT COMMUNISM Yuri Bezmenov (former kgb) Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society ED: Okay, so what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people? {To fight fascist Communism????} Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain [to] them THE REAL DANGER OF socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government. """""""""""" YURI: Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain [to] them THE REAL DANGER OF socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government.... The moment at least part of [the] United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to FORCE their government... to stop aiding Communism.
What do you think about Mearsheimer's view? Where is he right, and where wrong?
Liberism and Nationalism are not mutually exclusive. The founding fathers were Liberal Nationalities.
Now this is not counting these modern fake liberals.
Original liberalism
Or
Modern liberalism?
It isn't that simple. Nations become states; the Zionists wanted a Jewish state. But more often states become nations. The nationality of American was created by the existence of the American state. Before America came to be there wasn't a lost American nation wandering the world demanding their own state. His definition of nation is also vague to the point of uselessness and potentially dangerous. Is he talking about race? culture? religion? Some of these things are very dangerous if used as the basis for a state.
Liberalism allows freedom to individuals, but it also allows freedom to groups. The United States and other liberal states guarantee freedom of religion for example. Liberalism does not depend on individualism to the extent claimed. Groups can coexist in a liberal framework also. Historically it was Protestant and Catholic agreeing to coexist peacefully that was the catalyst for liberalism. Liberalism is basically a philosophy of live and let live, and that applies to individuals and groups equally.
@@99Yteu So-called trans rights are not rights at all, especially within the context of an individualist society where property is privately owned. In such a society, the individual owners of restrooms, e.g., restaurants, can decide what policies they want to adopt for their establishments, and patrons, i.e., customers, can decide either to patronize the establishment or take their business elsewhere. No one, not a group nor a voting majority, would have the right to dictate to a property owner how their property must be used.
Liberalism as a international relations theory is fundamentally naive and dangerous. Most people are tribal and not guided by reason and the belief in goodwill and universal morality. Liberal values can only flourish in societies that are relatively homogeneous, i.e. where these values are shared by its members, and social trust is high. In a heterogenous society, where the members’ loyalty is tribal and their morality is non-universal (i.e. the non-liberal belief that morality applies differently to different peoples), liberal values are not only naive but self-defeating. That is why liberal values can only flourish in societies that realize these dangers of multiculturalism and tribal loyalties, and whose first commitment is that of its own survival - which demands that we protect ourselves from those who do not share the West’s enlightenment values of reason, goodwill, and universal morality. Tolerance - an other Western value - does not mean that we mustn’t or shouldn’t protect ourselves from those who seek to replace these values with non-liberal ones. To not be willing to stand up and defend our values and make sure that they live on, is to not value them in the first place. Those who believe that our liberal values, such as individualism, tolerance, privacy, freedom of speech, and the rule of law, is a good thing, must also be willing to fight to protect them.
Erik Olivecrona This is a very good comment Erik. Thank you.
Excellent - you've done your homework!
Exactly. That is the major problem in Europe. We have very quickly moved from homogeneous very liberal societies to multiculturalism. Our liberal values are being eroded from within. Free speech, democracy, equality are all being compromised, ironically justified as an attempt to protect them. Meanwhile those of us who want to actually preserve them, who will not compromise and understand that it can only be done through preserving the nation state and a homogeneous culture within it, are being vilified as nationalist and racist. Which of course to many borders on, or is the equivalent of, Nazism.
Nietzsche predicts this kind of absurdity. It appears you can get everywhere with any old appeal - or virtually any old appeal - to 'morality'.
By 'morality' we now mean equality. Anyone who doesn't recognise that morality is equality, is guilty of every modern crime and must be silenced - in the name of morality and the Church of Rawls and Latter Day Saints.
Arguing with this morality may be accelerated to the worst offence, for which any reaction may be justified - because standing in the way of ultimate schemes to liberate humanity is the worst thing you can do.
Two conclusions - 1) ideas run this world and bad ideas do immense damage. 2) Never compromise with the idea that these bad ideas are about morality. Always point out the selfishness, greed and intolerance in them. Never affirm the view that these people are moral - at all! Challenge every assumption of these mumbo-jumbo merchants.
99Yteu Well, the term ‘nationalism’ has been seriously tainted since WWII. But up until then, the idea of a nation state with strong borders was actually something most arduously argued for by people on the Left, who realized that it is impossible to have and maintain a welfare state without strong borders. And the idea of no borders at all was a far right position up until just a decade or so ago. It was something only argued for by people such as anarcho-capitalists and the Koch brothers who wanted cheap labor.
Great talk about the basics - which many academics struggle to recognise consistently.
In my experience many academics who specialise in political theory and in ideas have blind spots about nations and nationalism. Both Marxism and liberalism have an inbuilt bias against the nation - the credulity of academics during Brexit showed that quite clearly. After Brexit, US reaction to Trump just repeated the very same errors.
I think the mostly voodoo history about invented communities, which rampaged through universities, has not helped matters. That sometimes literal-minded and convenient view answered all known questions and made it impossible to hold back the still rising and continuing tide of dangerous delusions which has inoculated liberal and Marxist minds from reality. Two centuries of being proved absolutely wrong on every count is clearly not enough. They wouldn't be so stupid if they weren't smart enough to make a good case against established and obvious reality.
I've never come across someone contrasting Liberalism with Nationism at the core philosophical level like this. Thank you. I'm a hybrid, leaning more towards Nationalism as I age and witness where unfettered Liberalism has brought us.
The fundamental difference between right and left-wing thought is that the right derives (ought) from (is) and the left derives (is) from (ought).
The right says things like, we (ought) to restrict immigration to ethnically and culturally similar countries because there (is) less social cohesion and trust when groups with different beliefs, behavior, and intelligence are forced to live together. The left says things like, it (is) wrong to racially profile people because we (ought) to believe that everyone is equal.
The right deals with reality and makes practical behavioral prescriptions accordingly. The left makes moral claims based on their ideology about how they WISH the world to be.
So you see, the political disconnect comes from both the fact that the principle equation is reversed and the terms apply to opposite domains. The right's Ought deals with reactionary behavior, the left's Ought deals with ideology. The right's Is deals with reality, the left's Is deals with morality (strictly within their egalitarian framework, of course). This is why people say the left doesn't deal in reality - it literally doesn't factor into their equation.
@@dreamer097 : Politics is not so one dimensional. There are at least three identifiable axises, not one.
1) Wealth distribution: left/right (socialism/capitalism).
2) Power structures: liberal/authoritarian or totalitarian (liberty/oppression).
3) Social ideals: progressive/conservative/regressive (progress/status quo/ reversion).
Simply understanding the meanings and the roots of the language itself is enough to debunk much of what John says in this video. But I would have a field day with this one, and I'd rather spend that time progressively. Being that I am a progressive because what I care about is progress. Not conserving broken systems, nor trying to regress to older even more broken systems. I am not opposed to my own evolution as an individual, nor the evolution of my species as a whole. But many are opposed to that, and so they mix up terms and use disingenuous arguments.
That anyone has this conversation without even mentioning nationalism is a form of bigotry, let alone pointedly avoiding that the delusions of bigots is really what all of the fuss is about, just proves they are bigots themselves.
If anyone can't see that dividing people the entire point of bigotry, and that nationalism is a form of bigotry, it's because they don't want to see it, or they are too cowardly to say it out loud. Most often people just aren't that stupid, and they know they are bigots. It's why they get so insanely upset by people calling them out for it.
For instance, I've been called a "racist" plenty of times (I'm white as rice, but grew up where I was the minority in all of my schools), and I just laugh at anyone who calls me that because they are only making a fool out of themselves.
Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm bothering. I guess it's that I am strong enough to have not lost all hope for my fellow humans who are stuck in the 1950's. Generally speaking, I dislike a lot of humanity, but that doesn't mean I don't care about them all.
Even were I completely selfish, it would behoove me to care about others because that creates more peace and prosperity for everyone in general, and that makes my life happier, healthier, and far Far safer. People who think making enemies instead of making friends is a better course of action is exactly why we have wars, terrorism, and so much hate and violence in general.
@@aylbdrmadison1051 Groups want to become humanity, that's what you don't understand, there will not be a lot of lineages in the end living together, you are delusional, your concept of bigotry is childish, and nature doesn't give a f about it, your understand of history is pathetic, the fact that you are a minority, means that your group is inferior to organize itself and grow, therefore you want the group that was successful in doing so, to share everything with you, stop being a pathetic loser, don't blame your insufficiencies into others.
A true realist!
At the end of your thing.
You just prove the point.
That you can be a national country and have liberty..
The more liberty somebody has the less power the nation has to control their citizens. This is the only reason why Nations reject liberty.
Liberalism and nationalism aren't opposite concepts. The distinction between primary individual and social being is arbitrary as well. We are both. Nationalism is a nature-based concept derived from family, peer groups that you seek loyal, trustworthy people around you that know you best and may have the same needs. Call the logic behind a universal/natural principle.
The idea to form a state of homogeneous people to maximize the shared benefits is the reason behind nationalism. The problem is that we are individuals as well. Nation focused states have the problem that the act on this small line between individual rights and common benefit/thinking. So no matter what these states do they harm individual citizens. Because no one can predict the needs of millions and can act in the right way to fulfill all their needs. Nationalism leads therefore into individual suppression.
Liberalism on the other hand doesn't need a state. He derived this conclusion from the mentioned concept that we are primary individuals but we are social beings as well. So he thinks there is the need of a external power like parents for children who watch, care and educate their children. But we all know that the state doesn't want a educated, wise citizen with a critical mind. Our normal life and our daily interactions prove him wrong. We all seek freedom and act with each other mostly friendly. So neutral judges and a security we may have without a state and forced taxes. It's just a question how to organize this. When we visited the moon, have satellites and so on it seems pretty easy for me to organize a society based on maximum individual rights with an universal law to don't harm other. And since we a social beings as well we do that social stuff the state does but now we know our vis-à-vis.
When my body belongs to me then the output of my work belongs to me as well. I should have the right to decide where I invest MY money, because I worked for it no other.
Nowadays the state is the biggest thread to individual rights.
Thanks, what are the ground principles in marxism?
I think it's all about the female and masculine aspects of ourselves when it comes to all ideologies. They tend to go to radical if people don't have their personal stuff figured out. Some are more female aspect based and the others are more masculine. That's why people fight over words it's really what people don't get about themselves and in this way they project their issues to the outside. The ideologies themselves should be viewed as ideas or directions for situations to pick. Sometimes the left is right and sometimes the right but people take it personal if they have issues with themselves not the other side, maybe the other aspect of oneself.
Very interesting talk. Liberalism and nationalism (as defined in the lecture) both make important contributions as different means to establishing a good society, but the critical factor is whether they are both oriented toward a good and proper end. We get hung up arguing about means of arranging society as if those means are the ends in themselves, when they are not. Liberalism recognizes the innate value of human life and protects an individual's right to live freely, but nationalism reminds us that when individuals use their freedom poorly by pursuing unworthy ends, those individual lives are devastated, as well as their families and the nation as a whole. We are individuals who thrive in community. Individual life does possess intrinsic value, but freedom is not the ultimate good in itself, and when that freedom is misused, our freedoms quickly disappear. These points are all true, and can only be balanced accordingly when properly oriented in pursuit of the good. What I'm advocating for is a type of synthesis of Straussian natural rights theory and Kirkian pragmatism; Strauss affirms that the basic value of the individual is the whole reason for government existing at all, while Kirk provides the prudence to prevent us becoming a crusader state. But so long as society hides from the fundamental conversation involving the nature of the good, we will be spinning our wheels and talking past one another, by focusing on means when the real question is about ends.
My problem with nationalism is that when taken to the extreme it ends up invalidating the individual, you are reduced to a mere number ... Almost meaningless! Whereas, the classical liberal tradition based on the social-contract is between the individual and the nationstate, a symbiotic relationship which enables and furthers a well functioning society with neither one dominating the other.
@@99Yteu
Yes, that was certainly the case with Germany, Spain and Russia...
You see it's that hyperpartisan way in which you justify the failures of nationalism blaming the opposition that's the largest problem, we can't stay consistent if pur problems are caused by the opposition, but their problems are of their own doing. Let's flip the script. If liberals were to say that the only reason we have open border activists and x+ many genders proposals is counter-culture to the historically dominant *extreme* far-right positions from anti-immigration to blatant racism, and religious nuts spousing that premarital sex causes earthquakes etc. we remove real problems and the responsibility from contemporary liberalism and liberals, but similarly nationalism that has been used to create an us versus them, that is there basically on all of your rhetoric shouldn't be on the shoulders of liberals but of the reasonable nationalists.
Anything taken to the extreme is poisonous. Liberal extremists assume that they are the ultimate authority on what's morally good, and will try to force LGTB sexual norms onto religious communities. In the end, extremist liberalism also wants everybody to look the same, because - as was said - liberalism is ultimately a universalist ideology. I believe that Donald Trump is the nationalist backlash against the extremist SJW movement that has become so powerful in the last few years.
@@Hannodb1961
I similarly oppose all of those SJW lunatics etc, but to say that those people trying to force their way are somehow liberal, just because that's the label they spouse, is like saying I'm a nationalist but we have to implement open borders. I'm pretty sure there aren't many (imo any real) nationalists who'd accept that claim just because self identification is somehow the most important thing even when that contradicts reality.
So what I'm trying to say is people might say they liberal and act the opposite making them not liberal? And if one thinks that's unfair because liberalism isn't binary, try saying that those for open borders are nationalists, and difficulty arises whether we should discredit ideologies due to retards or discredit the retards to be able to more properly continue exchange between that has already got us this far.
@@aksukovala181 You raise a fair point, but I do think we agree to a point. I think the common ground we have here is that one must recognize the limitations of your ideology. Extremism occurs when an ideology becomes an ultimate authority rather than just a guiding principle. It's then that the nationalist extremist will try to snuff out all individualistic differences, while the extremist liberal will try to force everyone to accept what he deems to be inalienable individualistic rights.
@@Hannodb1961
Absolutely. Pacifism is one of the few, if not the only thing where you could say absolute extremism might be beneficial overall, but even that struggles with real world application due to the danger of abuse from outside forces.
I've seen quite a bit about liberalism, and I tend to agree more with some of the earliest approaches where any limitations for negative freedom had to be strongly argued for, and even things like human rights could only be achieved through this method, instead of just assuming them for whatever one claims they are. The problem with this philosophy in its extreme is, indeed, why not just go for survival of the fittest and target/hurt/kill your competition etc, ending up horrible for anyone but the strongest, smartest, most creative... for anyone but the fittest.
Now to the contemporary liberals and how I see the current problem, is that we ended up with a more (I don't have an apt name for it so) let's say American liberalism, or maybe positive freedom and human right centric liberalism is better, where liberalism becomes mainstream culture and the evolution of the ideology is taken over by all individuals even those with no understanding of "their own ideology."
The continuation has been a (imo) fast and consistent increase in the absolutism for human rights, often even heavily on the price of freedom, sometimes for the slightest of freedom or the feeling of safety or etc. This change might also reflect the change I see at least locally where positive freedom gains importance from the negative one.
For example the last couple of years "liberal" feminists against cat calling. Just a couple of days ago I saw another video (from Lauren Chen this time) reacting to women who demand that they can avoid all interaction with strangers, potentially criminalizing flirty familiarities or etc. Basically she has the negative freedom where no one stops from her from going out for the jog, nor from stopping to get headphones etc. The men have the right to whistle at her, they can exchange pleasantries or etc. She would rather have it that instead of her being able to use headphones, or, if to enjoy nature, go somewhere more remote, but to maximize her positive freedom she is willing to curtail the negative freedom of the men, just because she feels it's her human right to not be communicated to, yet she takes no responsibility, when even a custom shirt saying "Strangers don't talk to me" might do the trick.
I don't know if you care to read all of this nor if you have anything to add or to disagree with, but I'm sure we'd have plenty to argue just as well as agree on in the real world rather than in the comment section of just a singular topic of a youtube video.
The tenets of liberalism are of course individual rights and the maximization of utilities for the individual. It's universalistic, pretentiös, rootless, and risk destroying the collective and unitary forces of a society.
I take some issue with the professor's distinction of "nationalism" as a group of people who feel that their common characteristics should allow them to have their own state. While it may be slight, the distinction that people of similar "characteristics" wanting to preserve their own identities, as a people (with all that entails: traditions, culture, etc.), and people of similar characteristics SEEKING to create their own state, which is what it sounds like, using his formulation, are quite a different thing. As for the professor's description of liberalism, I would say that it is far closer to the "classical" liberalism of yesteryear, rather than what has morphed into the leftist liberalism of today. Now, it may well be his intention to contrast the old liberalism vs nationalism, but seeing as how this issue has become a point of current conflict in today's world, I'd say it bears little sense to contrast ideologies that are far less relevant today, at least in so far as they have been described here, than the actual conflict of today's ideologies. Those are a liberal left that has completely warped its nascent ideals into a close-minded, juvenile yearning for a nanny state to absolve them of all responsibility while actively and insidiously imposing their views on all who would disagree. These would, first and foremost, be the nationalist-minded people who understand the fallacy of "diversity is our strength" thinking, and are loath to discard centuries of precious traditions, values, culture and cohesion for the sake of a misguided "enlightened" utopian ideal of diversity where the very diversity they seek prevents any societal cohesion and sharing of values.
I agree that national competition trumps a world order predicated on the belief that every individual possesses a sovereign soul, but the precarious primacy of violent nation-states could succumb to a prosocially principled global economic order that makes a large plurality of non-militerized corporations our primary social unit.
How are liberalism and nationalism even comparable? One is a political dynamic that explains someone's leanings for policy and the other is an organizational structure for power?
Well, is the "nationalism core assumption" [6:59] wrong? NO. As it happens with the other apes, we too are actually a tribal species. We literally do depend on our parents for at least the first decade of our lives. So, what's wrong with it?
Nationalism based on group theory has now become muddied as previously effective categorisation and successful implementation of liberal ideas is struggling with the expansion of the size of previously smaller sub-groups. When a group within a nation is large enough and has drastically different views and values to the agreed upon past consensus and identity it causes innate internal conflict. One example being the semi isolationist communities of near exclusively Muslim areas in Europe. Group theory here is evidenced by the vast conflict in values and fundamental national assumptions. When cultures within a nation feel so drastically different we see the evidence of tension and impossibility to govern successfully for all in a nation.
Edit: historically religion and also rich vs poor have been the major conflicting groups. With race, religion and social standing being exacerbated by the size of each populace, we clearly see social and political divides and tension today
Both ideas are just that, ideas, notional.
If he’s a nationalist and America is an individualist nation, why’d he invest so much of himself in that nation? Just asking.
But I agree in sort of parallel with one of his ideas: We are indeed in the Age of Rights. I would add that the age of Relationships is over.
I've always been proudly and unapologetically a nationalist. I've always found it weird that Nationalism is portrayed as somehow being evil, just because the NAZI's (Who were Imperialists - which is the polar opposite of Nationalism) abused that term. It's like saying Democracy is evil because Communist states called itself "Democratic". I find the critics of Nationalism are usually using intellectually lazy and poor logic, usually by just lumping very different kinds of people together and labeling them all with some kind of "-ism". Simply saying "That's [Insert Label]" is not a valid argument against anything. I want the Afrikaner people of South Africa to have our own state.
Don't forget the Germans were nationalist socialists. Why the first is bad but the second gets a free pass is beyond me.
@@MA_KA_PA_TIE See, thats my point. They weren't nationalist socialists, they were national socialists. The difference is subtle, but important. A nationalist is someone who believes that homogenous ethnic or cultural groups have a right to national selfdetermination. This is clearly not what the nazis believed, they believed that strong nations must rule over weak nations, which is imperialism, the exact oposite of nationalism. So, what is the "National" in National Socialism? Most Socialists back then were internationalists. They thought workers across the world must throw off any other identities that divide them, and unite as workers, to reap the benefits provided by the state. The Nazi's believed in Socialism, _but only for Germans_ In other words, the word "National" in "National Socialism" has nothing to do with Nationalism, it is a qualifier for the main idea - socialism. Nazism isnt nationalist and socialist, it is a particular form socialism only. But didn't they refer to themselves as nationalists? Sure. Like dictators refer to themselves as presidents, and communists refer to themselves as democratic republics. Up to that point, Nationalism had quite a respectable reputation for its fight against imperialism and colonialism. In fact, the treaty of Versailles is the ultimate Nationalist victory. So the Germans used Nationalism to justify annexing German lands. But the moment they started taking non-German lands, that justification fell flat, and the world became hostile towards them.
So the short version is: I do not acknowledge that the nazis were nationalists. I believe that association were made by internationalist leftists who see sovereign nations as an obsticle to their globalised internarnationalist agenda. The left has always advanced their cause with smears, rather than reasoned arguments.
@@Hannodb1961 they were nationalistic. The whole point of attempting to expand was a way of glorifying their nation. The whole propaganda was around nationalism. They were even ready to purge other ethicities
@@thecurious926 Everything you just said is the definition of imperialism, not nationalism .The Communist states claimed to be democratic as well. Does that mean that they were democratic? Should we therefore now all condemn democracy and declare never again? Should we legitimize the abuse of language by those who gives words the oposite meaning? Sure, if Transwomen are really women then then the Nazi's were Nationalists. But then, what does "women" and "nationalism" actually mean?
No, the Nazis were not nationalists, they were imperialists. Imperialism is the believe that your nation is superior over others, and therefore has the right to rule over other nations. Nationalism stands opposed to that in the believe that every nation has the right to national self determination. The moment the Nazis occupied Czechoslovakia, they exposed themselves to be the imperialists that they are, and all the talk of "Nationalism" was just propaganda to make them look good. And that's the point: Up to then, Nationalism was viewed as a noble pursuit, just like democracy, that's why the Nazi's used it in their propaganda. Nationalism was the moral propagandist justification to obscure their imperialism.
@@Hannodb1961 the expansionism aspect which you call imperialism is just one aspect. The sense of imperialism originated from nationalistic sentiment anyway. To get back previous glory. And what about the other things. The idea of a German race, purging or making other ethnicities leave.
I am not actually saying nationalism is a wrong sentiment. It's what you are willing to do with it as well...but you can't tell me the Nazis weren't nationalistic. He literally won the election based on that
I don’t get why I can’t believe in individualism and nationalism at the same time. Aren’t nations just a large group of individuals? The nation is sovereign because the individual is sovereign.
Ok let’s dump liberalism.
Until we turn Hive mind (bee or ant) Liberalism is suicide in slow-motion?
0:47 the original question being posed is simple one merely needs to go back in time to look at our evolution, we evolved in groups just like all of the other apes
Or biology.
In less than 3 minutes this guy explains exactly why I dont give a flying fuck about let alone respect anyone's precious beliefs!
He is discussing CLASSICAL LIBERALISM which is associated with contemporary conservatism, not contemporary liberalism associated with the American left. Very confusing without that distinction made.....
This is confusing to Americans, where liberalism and conservatism take a much more significant meaning than in the rest of the world.
Mearsheimer is a gregarious individual
As a narcissist I'm all about liberalism. There are more narcissists being created everyday so perhaps liberalism will eventually beat nationalism.
Narcissist don't fight for someone else's sake so a country(state) with more nationalism beat a country(state) with less nationalism.
But what do you do with the following problem of majoritarian nation states. What is they want slavery and/or racial segregation? Are all "citizen" rights purely majoritarian? Do non-citizens have no rights in a nation? Is it OK to simply kick all minorities out of the country if that's what people want? And what's to stop eugenic policies? And do CHILDREN have no rights? Is there no such thing as legal child abuse?
So while I agree there are many problems with how to govern the world from a "liberal" perspective, I see many serious issues with the 'nationalistic" approach. It's seem impossible to safeguard individual freedoms inside a nation state without the concept of human rights. But then, human rights ultimately undermine the nation state. Doesn't seem resolvable.
I’m all for helping the helpless not the worthless.
Best way to help the poor is not to become poor yourself.
Love this
Nationalism really loses its meaning in the internet age. I have more in common with people on the other side of the planet than my neighbors.
Hippity hoppity, you must physically remove a Hoppe book from a retailer, so to speak
I spent many years coming up with a new functional system (30+ years). I even published it. No one cares. Please remain encouraged and positive, but I am not sure people want solutions since they are so committed to their version of the problems. Here is the book that you too can ignore, not explore: kevinfitzmaurice.com/product/how-to-govern-anything-ocean-government/
Frankly I don't really get the argument. So you have liberal nations, they extrapolate from their sense of individuality make colonialism but then find out its bad. Why do we now need the nation again?
It isn't either or. It's both and.
If one thing true about human they are tribal being
Unless you are a ancap you are a nationalist.
Nationalism, liberalism, socialism, traditionalism, communism.
These ism, are all one and the same they all came from 18th century enlightenment renaissance Europe.
They all believe in the same thing. They are all founded on the philosophic and economic systems of the enlightenment.
They all are secular and based in atheism.
They all hope to achieve utopia and paradise on earth
They all want to unite the human race under them.
They all believe in humanism, that is the worship of man, to make god in our own likeness and image.
These isms, are all based around humanism.
Core tenants of the birth of modern philosophy from the renaissance and enlightenment.
The modern world and Modernism as a whole, is not just the technological state that we are in.
It is the philosophy, ideologies and economic systems.
Modern philosophy is so engrained in our presuppositions, that no matter what you do you cannot escape from it, since the entire world is “modern” the entire world believes in these things.
The fundamental philosophy from the west,
Scholasticism, Skepticism, empiricism, nominalism, dualism, atheism, nihilism, existentialism.
All of these isms, are evil, they come from the same place, and they have the same end goal and purpose.
To compare one ism from another means nothing.
Escaping the box of modernity is what one should contemplate
I disagree with the presenter: Most states are not Nation States. South Africa is not a nation state by any stretch of the imagination - neither is the vast majority of African states.
True. And those states don't work very well. Multinational states er either riddled with ethnic strife or tyrannies where one nationality rules over the others.
@@SheepWaveMeByeBye I don't think the common factor is so much ethnicity as it is values. People with the same values, language and culture will tend to associate with one another, and if this association persist over many generations, then an ethnicity is formed. However, when the values which created the ethnicity disappear, loyalty towards the ethnicity also tend to disappear, and I think that's exactly what is currently happening in Western countries. Democracy was never suppose to be about deciding on principles, but rather on what the best way was to implement shared principles. Without - at the very least - shared common principles which everyone agree on, democracy is doomed.
@@Hannodb1961 This isn't true, and the history of the West is a perfect example of the fact that Nations don't just emerge because of similar values: those values are created and enforced. This is why people today talk about nationalism like it's some kind of gentle thing, but one of the best examples of how Nation States emerge in the history of mankind was German Unification led by Bismarck. It happens through negotiations, mass education/propaganda, realpolitik and yes, war, which at least in theory, is aimed at securing borders.
@@jeviosoorishas181 Yes, but mostly no. You undermine your own argument with the German example.
Yes, force is involved, yes propaganda is involved, yes education and the media is involved. But the ideal of a unified Germany existed long before Bismarck came along and executed it. Moreover, there was a lot of preexisting cultural, linguistic and religious common ground between the German states already. One of the biggest questions during the unification of Germany was what to do about Austria. The reason she was finally excluded from the empire is because of her non German empire that wasnt compatible with the ideal of a German nation state.
So yes, while there is some level in force involved in Nationalism, it only works because of pre existing cultural values that binds a people. Where that preexisting cultural identity doesnt exist, the Austrian empire, the soviet union, or even all of the so called African "nation" states is an example of what happens. You cannot force nationhood on a people that never was a nation to begin with. I know, I'm South African, and "South Africa" is nothing more than a geographic label, it can never be a cultural identifier
He is wrong as he analyzes truth on the basis of logic and evidence. Truth is self-evident and can only be realized by those who are free
HOW TO FIGHT COMMUNISM
Yuri Bezmenov (former kgb) Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society
ED: Okay, so what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?
{To fight fascist Communism????}
Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of
REAL patriotism, number one.
Number two, to explain [to] them THE REAL DANGER OF
socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government.
""""""""""""
YURI: Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of
REAL patriotism, number one.
Number two, to explain [to] them THE REAL DANGER OF
socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government.... The moment at least part of [the] United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to FORCE their government... to stop aiding Communism.
Neoliberalism?
The founding fathers were Liberal Nationalists. So this is a bit of a misnomer.
@michael Right, but even saying "closer" implies they're at odds somehow.
Doesn't sound that much liberal when talking about a nation of white men of good character. By today's standard they were nationalists.
@@99Yteu Lol, tell me you've never read the Declaration of Independence.