it also nicely counters things like https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-berlin-market-attack-europe-faces-grim-future-with-terrorism-as-fact-of-life/2016/12/23/6f2f6536-c84c-11e6-acda-59924caa2450_story.html

YES

TERRORISM = DIVERSITY AFTER COFFEE

Liberalism = Diversity while having coffee at Einsteins

PRETTY MUCH

OK, WANTED TO STOP IN AND SAY HIGH

NOW HAVE TO GO BE FUNCTIONAL

TOMORROW MORNING COMES FASTER THAN I LIKE

GLAD YOU ALL ARE DOING WELL

AND HOPE YOU ARE HAVING MOST EXCELLENT CHRISTMASES

okay, Festive Yule to you Brett

YOU TOO

take care Brett!

CHEERS ALL

GOOD NIGHT!

can't wait to think about our podcast! I'm developing topics right now

ooh i'm curious 😃

i know it will be priceless

Yea me and Brett talking about what we shouldn't be talking about... i'd give us 2 months before we're kicked off iTunes

you know you could spread the word to other Germans. it might be illegal for YOU to hold some of these veiws, but it's not illegal for Brett and I to talk about them

sure! will definitely do that

between you two it will be a fascinating podcast, I'm sure

good red pill basic attack

we'll get them thinking about home, homeland, my people, and what it means to me and why it should survive

btw, it's interesting that (at least in the introduction) Anderson does not consider ethno-nationalism at all, only as an abstract "imagined sovereign community"

*only nationalism as ...

I always saw nationalism as a more politically formalized extension of basic tribalism. For Anderson it appears to be only a recent "invention".

Have you gotten to the part where he attempts to divide nationalism into "strains" such as wetstern, eastern, imperial/colonial nationalism or religious nationalism?

not yet, I'm only at "cultural roots"

(second chapter)

I have to go back & re-read a couple of times almost for each page

well "nationalism" really goes back ot Napoloeon in the modern sense, it was a fuction of the need to get eveyone in a country behind a "total war" as von Klauswitz said in "Vom Kreig"

So the predecessor (obviated by nationalism) was competitive feudalism?

(competitive because that would preclude getting everyone in the country behind a total war)

like Germany before unification, basically

yea.

pretty much you nailed it

the thing is though, he does look at smaller societies that were fragmented such as the Holy Roman Empire, or Prussa and decides that Germany and Poland are not nations in the ethne sense of the word, and instead calls for the dissolution of those two states

though, there is an interesting question to be raised here.... if the Germans aren't a true people, then how can it be claimed that Jews, which are in diaspora across the continant, are a unique people? How can you say X group attempted to exterminate Z group if Z group wasn't a people either?

it's true! I imagine many Jews are less ethnically Jewish than you are ethnically German.

But in a way he's right - the "German" identity is more abstract and seems weaker than more local (e.g. Bundesland level) identities